Re: [VOTE][RFC] ZPP Failure on Overflow

> On 9 Dec 2014, at 15:27, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > > Andrea Faulds wrote on 09/12/2014 14:10: >>> On 9 Dec 2014, at 13:23, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Note that in master, the messages have been changed to (correctly) not mention the C >>> types, only the PHP ones, so it would be more like "expects parameter 1 to be integer, float >>> (which is beyond integer range) given". >> They... have? When did this happen? It's something I was very much in favour of and >> wanted to do myself, but I was unaware this had recently changed. Does that mean I'll have to >> redo the patch for this RFC? :( >> > > Oh; maybe not. I'm confused now. > > There's a commit making the change, I think in amongst the "64-bit" work: > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/63ea29a2067ce06e20dda861480d91624389f0f3 > > But then the current master seems to be back using the old wording (random example): > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/ext/curl/tests/curl_setopt_error.phpt > (Also, lxr.php.net doesn't show the PHPT files at all? > http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_TRUNK/ext/curl/tests/) > > I actually prepared a PR a while ago to change everything, but master was a bit of a moving > target at the time, so it probably needs a bit of work to rebase: > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/769 I didn't bother because > I thought someone had beaten me to it, but maybe I should revisit it after all? Hi! It looks like those changes aren’t in master. Once this RFC passes, I’d very much like to see a new attempt to make the names consistent, it’s something that’s bothered me. If this was to be revisited, I think the names for IS_LONG and IS_BOOL should be “int” and “bool” respectively, not “integer” and “boolean”, those feel more like proper type names. Also, it might be worth making is_long an alias of is_int, rather than the reverse which is what we have now. Thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/