Re: int64/size_t options votes clarification
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:34:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: int64/size_t options votes clarification | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-71880@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 1/30/14, 11:45 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> 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.
I thought that was obvious. I prefer not to see this change in 5.x at
all, but in case it passes the vote I would want to minimize the API
damage. Hence the "No" vote and the hedge votes for minimal 5.x API
breakage. This has nothing to do with PHP 6. For PHP 6 there will be
other API changes which may very well affect this.
-Rasmus
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc