Re: [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On 23 Aug 2014, at 20:38, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > Please try to port one. That will solve this never ending ping pong > game. Extensions are broken per se with ng, almost every zval macros > usage must change (some disappeared, like the _PP ones), all hash APIs > call must be change (a must, not detectable at compile time), etc. > IS_LONG to IS_INT is a joke in comparison. But as nobody agrees on > that, I won't discuss it to death. You previously told me on this list that if I maintained an extension, I’d know that replacing macro names with a find/replace is a big deal. >> 2. If bigints are implemented, we’d have to rename everything again. > > Ah, and that will be acceptable then, right? ;-) It wouldn’t be needless, it would be done to reduce confusion. > Also hurry up with that, even if not totally completed. Many > extensions may have to deal with it and it will just double the > porting work if it is not done soon. I’ll look into it. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/