Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76837
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <489C10C0-4C10-4791-AFF0-8991AB718185@ajf.me>
References: <CAF+90c_AMJ3SLyX7eDQq-gwFLOCQUfLus+qFfJgAgTzBpZpfEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<e0768962293daa3b4e5a5784ce3646b9.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
	<CA+9eiLsW4OBfj90mzZuW=HKstcLjfVbXQB5dfcm9sj8WrOF7zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<489C10C0-4C10-4791-AFF0-8991AB718185@ajf.me>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:00:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5CUEDJ3G7TT_2D+hfuU-vwRSeUr2oqSoxMFJN5D5mc0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf15e44657e4405014d369c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--047d7bf15e44657e4405014d369c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 23, 2014 4:34 PM, "Andrea Faulds" <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Aug 2014, at 10:43, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> 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=E2=80=99t t=
hat just
a typedef for size_t? It=E2=80=99s not like it=E2=80=99ll vary on different=
 platforms,
doing so would defeat the purpose of using size_t in the first place.

Was not desired back then as it "changed too much". So it simply matched
what already exists for years.

To me we should just use size_t and uint32_t for zend_uint (solving the
zend_uint vs zend_into_t).

Cheers,
Pierre

--047d7bf15e44657e4405014d369c--