Re: [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: > 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. These points are not irrelevant: - zend_uint should go away, uint32_t should be used instead - zend_int_t could remain. it matches the respective, architecture specific int32_t and int64_t being used behind it. _t standing for _typed just like in the standard types intXX_t And we can add: - zend_size_t can be dropped in favor of size_t And dangerous APIs signature changes are not irrelevant either. And many of them are not related to performance at all but a choice made at the implementation time. So the solid technical reason you mention later does not apply here. On the same area, I would also prefer not to use STR_* defines but directly called zend_string_*, it will drastically reduce errors during porting or later. > The fact that many related things > are changing does not justify piling on more changes. RIght. > Every change > should have a very solid technical reason behind it. "Long is not used > anymore" is not a solid technical reason. Consistent APIs, in my book, is 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. Extensions write should not use the zend_value member directly but use the provided APIs or macros, which is called Z_IVAL btw. Want to change to Z_LVAL? WIll be more consistent. > As C developers, extension authors are > more than capable of checking the actual macro definition if they want > to know the details. I have not doubt about the capabilities of the extension developers, but improving APIs quality reduces the # of errors. > I'd also appreciate if you would drop your toxicity level a few notches > in your emails to the list, irc and twitter. I do not agree with your definition, but as long as there are double standards and related behaviors, I do not see how things can improve. The way this RFC has been handled is a shame. If NG would have got as much code reviews, got blocked twice while being accepted, etc. I do not think Dmitry or Laruence would be that happy at this point. And seriously, this is a pretty bad behavior. It is also not the 1st time it happens. Only difference is that I do not care much when something happens, I know each of you long enough, but other simply left. Anyway, it does not help anyone to argue about that over and over, I can agree with you on that. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org