On Aug 21, 2014 7:58 PM, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:56, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The original patch used the right naming based on the type used behind it. > > So IS_LONGLONG, then?
The original patch, the one from last year. We have made compromises to fulfill other devs requests, three times. Now to be honest I would merge it right away. I do not see why we need to discuss that again. When I see how phpng got accepted without a word, time to stop arguing about such things. Merge and move back to code. If one thinks that one thing or another should be changed, in this patch or phpng, he will need to write a rfc (and not in 6 months :). > > In any case, the patch represents what the rfc and the discussions around > > it say. I rather merge it asal and begin on the (long) list of todos for 7. > > > > If you like to propose new naming with the bigint rfc, please go ahead. > > Time is also an issue as ppl are beginning to migrate their extensions to > > test. Changing them again takes time. > > Forgive me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t changing the name again just be a simple matter of global find/replace? No, totally not :) Even less as bigint support should be added too. And if bigint support will be optional, the code will need more changes.
