On Aug 25, 2014 12:56 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.
Why do we need it when the standard type exists and does exactly what we want? Same for size_t. It is mostly contained in the engine, no other impact and avoid yet another type definition for existing standard type (we have php_stdint.h to make them always available). >> > 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. Thanks Cheers, Pierre
