int64/size_t options votes clarification

hi, Reviewing the votes and the arguments for the votes (negative or positive), it seems that there is a little confusion or I miss the reasoning behind the votes about the options. The option #1 (Keep the old macro names for LONG vs. INT, STRLEN vs. STRSIZE, etc.) and #2 (Keep zpp specs l, L, s, p as aliases to i, I, S, P), which both drastically reduce code changes or #fidef usage, are valid for 5.6 integration. In the case this RFC is rejected for 5.6, these options are really not what is planed to do for 6.x as we should do it the clean way, as explained in the various discussions here and as many of the opposition used as argument as well. For those having voted no for 5.6 and the options, would you mind explaining what are your wishes? It will help to move forward, no matter the outcome of the votes. Thanks! Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org