rfc:better_type_names_for_int64

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next 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)
Line 21: Line 21:
   * 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 (external edit)