Re: [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On 8/22/14, 11:25 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > There is. Long is not used anymore. So we can argue about that but > there is a change and it should be reflected imo. > > You still totally ignore any of my other points, which are even more > important in regard to maintaining one code tree for 5.x and 7.x, > which is very likely not possible in a sane way for many extensions. I ignored it because it is irrelevant. The fact that many related things are changing does not justify piling on more changes. Every change should have a very solid technical reason behind it. "Long is not used anymore" is not a solid technical reason. The code will compile perfectly fine with it being IS_LONG. Also, these are userspace-facing in the sense that as an extension author we are dealing with PHP's type system consisting of lval, dval, string, array, object and resource. How exactly an lval or IS_LONG is implemented at the C level on any given platform is an implementation detail and could change, but we are still providing an lval to userspace. As C developers, extension authors are more than capable of checking the actual macro definition if they want to know the details. I'd also appreciate if you would drop your toxicity level a few notches in your emails to the list, irc and twitter. Thanks -Rasmus

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