Re: Re: PHP 5.6.0beta2 Released for Testing!

hi Bob, On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Am 2.5.2014 um 18:11 schrieb Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Hannes Magnusson <bjori@php.net> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Jan Ehrhardt <phpdev@ehrhardt.nl> wrote: >>>> Ferenc Kovacs in php.qa (Fri, 2 May 2014 12:42:55 +0200): >>>>>> ext\apcu\apc_bin.c(238) : error C2065: 'IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY' : >>>>>> undeclared >>>>>> identifier >>>>> >>>>> Afair this was mentioned in UPGRADING.INTERNALS, if I remember wrong >>> please >>>>> open a bugreport. >>>> >>>> Might be that it is mentioned there (did not check yet), but to an >>>> innocent bystander it looks like a BC break between beta1 and beta2. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> l. Removal of IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY and IS_CONSTANT_INDEX hack >>> >>> These two #defines disappeared. Instead we have now IS_CONSTANT_AST which >>> covers also the functionality IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY bid and furthermore the >>> hack for marking zvals as constant index with IS_CONSTANT_INDEX is now >>> superfluous and so removed. >>> Please note that IS_CONSTANT_AST now has the same value than >>> IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY had. As I do not mind API changes between two x.y versions (it is allowed), I wonder why removing it is a good thing. Given that IS_CONSTANT_AST and IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY have the same values, the behaviors are the same. Keeping the old and document it as alias.Or am I missing something? > It maybe does the same thing, but it needs other handling. > (IS_CONSTANT_AST in reality covers also many other cases, not > just arrays). > > If I hadn't renamed the constant, it might eventually still compile fine, > but the program would get crashes you don't notice when not testing > a very specific subset of the language in combination with the AST. > (In reality the AST is more an addition and now when fixing bug 66015 > much later, IS_CONSTANT_AST became superfluous and so was removed). > > This at least ensures that you notice the problem. And prevents other > people complaining about a bug you maybe don't find so easily. > > I just did what seemed the most sensible thing to me. It is, there is only little gain to remove it just to remove it. Either way I am fine with the changes, but other may not. ps: there is no need to get such bad wording to discuss technical issues. There are people here actually doing the job, and doing it great. A bit of respect would be more than welcome. Bob is one of them. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org