Re: [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > 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. Excatly, and IS_LONG/INT are not macros and a very very tiny change in comparison to anything else, be ng alone, or ng+int64. >>> 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. If you need help (windows or other), let me know. Want it in :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org