rfc:better_type_names_for_int64
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| rfc:better_type_names_for_int64 [2014/08/22 10:54] – nikic | rfc:better_type_names_for_int64 [2017/09/22 13:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| * There now exists a ''zend_int_t'' type (which is a 64bit-on-64bit type) and ''zend_int'' (which is a 32bit type). Apart from the ''_t'' suffix the name is the same, but the meaning is totally different. | * There now exists a ''zend_int_t'' type (which is a 64bit-on-64bit type) and ''zend_int'' (which is a 32bit type). Apart from the ''_t'' suffix the name is the same, but the meaning is totally different. |
| * PHP and the Zend Engine do not use ''_t'' suffixes for types. This introduces a new type naming convention that is not used anywhere else. (Probably this is done to avoid clashing with the previous point.) | * PHP and the Zend Engine do not use ''_t'' suffixes for types. This introduces a new type naming convention that is not used anywhere else. (Probably this is done to avoid clashing with the previous point.) |
| * Using the term ''int'' for an 64bit type goes against the normal expectations of a C programmer (ILP64 systems are very rare). The meaning of the ''zend_int_t'' type is much closer to the ''long'' type. | * Furthermore all types ending in ''_t'' are reserved by the POSIX standard. |
| | * Using the term ''int'' for an 64bit type goes against the normal expectations of a C programmer (ILP64 systems are rare). The meaning of the ''zend_int_t'' type is much closer to the ''long'' type. |
| |
| Instead the following alternative naming is proposed: | Instead the following alternative naming is proposed: |
rfc/better_type_names_for_int64.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1