Re: [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On 8/22/14, 11:09 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/14, 10:46 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: >>> In other words, it would be nice to see more developers actually >>> porting extensions to realize the amount of changes are introduced by >>> NG and by the int64. The sooner is in order of magnitude must larger. >>> It is not a bad comment, only a fact. Given that, before we choose to >>> say that it is fine for one part to change APIs/Macros signatures or >>> names and not for another, we should really get a better view of what >>> has actually changed. And how we can deal with our old habit to >>> maintain one tree for many major PHP versions. For many extensions, I >>> do not think it will be possible, or with unreadable code with 2-3x >>> more #ifdef all over the place. >> >> I knew you would make this comparison. I am willing to suffer porting >> pain if it gets me a 20% performance boost. I am completely unwilling to >> suffer any porting pain because Pierre has decided he doesn't like the >> names of some macros. > > Sorry Rasmus, this reply is irrelevant or off base. What in my reply > makes you tell that it is about my taste? There is no technical reason to change IS_LONG to IS_INT along with the others in that category. It is purely a taste/purity/questionable-consistency thing and doesn't need to be done to solve any real technical problem. -Rasmus

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc