On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2014 9:22 AM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Pierre, > > > > I'm glad, you agree to rename IS_INT back to IS_LONG. > > > > zend_long and size_t usage looks fine. > > > > I see no problems changing zend_string related API and related macros > introduced in NG. They are new for everyone. > > I hope, the changes won't make API less clear or useful (so it would be > great to review them). > > > > I don't see a big reason to rename "zend_uint" into "uint32_t", but it's > just my own opinion. I would prefer keep it as is, or at worse case rename > into "zend_uint32" or "uint32". Anyway, I'll agree with majority. > > > > uint32_t :) > 3 people are not the majority (or may be I missed discussion on IRC). It's better to think before changing something in many places without a real reason. > > How are we going to proceed? > > Do you like voting in > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/better_type_names_for_int64 or you may just > revert part of the int64 patch related to IS_LONG -> IS_INT renaming? > > We will just do the changes listed in the initial mail. The sooner the > better. Anatol or I will do it. It should be ready by Wednesday. If we can > avoid a 2-3 weeks delay let not do the rfc. As these changes match what was > discussed and fit with the majority (subjective part as only the vocal > ones), we should not see any objection. We will simply apply it on > Wednesday if nobody complained. > Agree, we need it ASAP. I'll try not to commit anything big to not make you additional troubles. Thanks. Dmitry. > > Who is going to implement the rest? When? Do we need RFC? > > May be it should be a general RFC about internal PHP APIs cleanup? > > I know, there are a lot of other inconsistencies... > > Yes there are other but less wisely spread within extension code. Let > check them later. > > Cheers, > Pierre >
