Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76845 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27439 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2014 19:38:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Aug 2014 19:38:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.51 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.51 mail-qg0-f51.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.51] ([209.85.192.51:46135] helo=mail-qg0-f51.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B8/02-06800-B9DE8F35 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:38:04 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a108so11562961qge.24 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:38:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w2EreLStfYgt9RXbPge8CG47hDCiNJkAW6PTvabvhq4=; b=ZWmkBDtRIgvBpdhkpZPSNdxY4hfLyhZs+3ccBepKSy94KKt289tjExFznljSyt1z/Y E6JanvSCMh1TRvH2ZVjQOrzQksvFvBtS15Uw6QHnHOzzeX+T01aQIicfIl5Q6UPw4b9D D3atmyyD6Pnrco7mUfnU0m3HurX4aUQ3CvPEJnNJxZRu8ClA1R1zmsGmVYYMT5loImFi iyrXOROtBbf9okz541vhG4un89R8Igex8mawtfSskgkZCbylBffAspHvyzHbV1pkjCpp p9JjDIE6IUJo9EdE2Jwy8LrybzIuU5tYP/cIQEJFp6+UTQRCtvHzrmw30dgeqUIPWUyo Ls/w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.42.195 with SMTP id c61mr9223267qga.54.1408822680852; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.95.146 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <27CDAA74-FA13-43D3-809B-6F56D76AC5DE@ajf.me> References: <53F7F6ED.1050609@lerdorf.com> <53F82F16.3030601@lerdorf.com> <53F832F0.7010601@lerdorf.com> <53F8C3F2.1090009@lerdorf.com> <27CDAA74-FA13-43D3-809B-6F56D76AC5DE@ajf.me> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:38:00 +0200 Message-ID: To: Andrea Faulds Cc: Kris Craig , Rasmus Lerdorf , PHP internals list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > On 23 Aug 2014, at 20:19, Kris Craig wrote: > >> I have a quick question for the people debating this issue: Aside from = the >> dispute over whether or not it's necessary / unimportant, are there any >> pressing reasons *not* to implement the changes that Pierre is advocatin= g? >> I.e. would it break anything, waste a large amount of time, make the cod= e >> harder to maintain, etc? Or is it just that you don't think it's worth >> doing? > > I can think of two: > > 1. It breaks most extensions out there, perhaps unnecessarily. Please try to port one. That will solve this never ending ping pong game. Extensions are broken per se with ng, almost every zval macros usage must change (some disappeared, like the _PP ones), all hash APIs call must be change (a must, not detectable at compile time), etc. IS_LONG to IS_INT is a joke in comparison. But as nobody agrees on that, I won't discuss it to death. > 2. If bigints are implemented, we=E2=80=99d have to rename everything aga= in. Ah, and that will be acceptable then, right? ;-) Also hurry up with that, even if not totally completed. Many extensions may have to deal with it and it will just double the porting work if it is not done soon. Cheers, --=20 Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org