Re: Naming issues, solutions

Hi Pierre, I'm glad, you agree to rename IS_INT back to IS_LONG. zend_long and size_t usage looks fine. I see no problems changing zend_string related API and related macros introduced in NG. They are new for everyone. I hope, the changes won't make API less clear or useful (so it would be great to review them). I don't see a big reason to rename "zend_uint" into "uint32_t", but it's just my own opinion. I would prefer keep it as is, or at worse case rename into "zend_uint32" or "uint32". Anyway, I'll agree with majority. How are we going to proceed? Do you like voting in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/better_type_names_for_int64 or you may just revert part of the int64 patch related to IS_LONG -> IS_INT renaming? Who is going to implement the rest? When? Do we need RFC? May be it should be a general RFC about internal PHP APIs cleanup? I know, there are a lot of other inconsistencies... Thanks. Dmitry. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Rouven Weßling <me@rouvenwessling.de> > wrote: > > > > > >> Am 24.08.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>: > >> > >> zend_uint > int32_t > > > > Is that a typo? If it's not, why are you changing it to signed? > > typo. It should be: > > zend_uint > uint32_t > > Thanks :) > > > Best regards > > Rouven > > > > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >