Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76836 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89706 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2014 14:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Aug 2014 14:34:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.200 imap1-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.200] ([192.64.116.200:59236] helo=imap1-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1E/20-21469-066A8F35 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7505DB00085; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap1.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap1.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vemeuCyVLX0i; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (05439dda.skybroadband.com [5.67.157.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C598FB0007B; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:33:58 +0100 Cc: Anatol Belski , Nikita Popov , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <489C10C0-4C10-4791-AFF0-8991AB718185@ajf.me> References: To: Dmitry Stogov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 23 Aug 2014, at 10:43, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > I think it's ok to keep zend_off_t and zend_size_t as is. Could someone enlighten me as to why we need zend_size_t? Isn=92t that = just a typedef for size_t? It=92s not like it=92ll vary on different = platforms, doing so would defeat the purpose of using size_t in the = first place. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/