On Sat, 1 Feb 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
> >> I agree that the 64-bit RFC doesn't affect syntax. However it does
> >> materially
> >> affect the language, so I believe it requires a 2/3 majority.
> >
> > I'd consider it a language-changing RFC. The 2/3 majority is related to
> > material changes in the language, and as you said, syntax changes are just
> > one (although the most common) such example. The 50%+1 is really for
> > extension-level changes - mostly new functions/extensions, moving stuff
> > to/from PECL, etc.
>
> It is not, there is no change from user level but on windows and a 1-2
> other platforms with long being 32 bit in 64bit.
>
> Also I find amazingly disturbing the amount of efforts you are putting
> to shut down this RFC, without a single comment in the last months or
> weeks, not even now to explain your vote.
>
> I do not mind a no, but what is happening here is disgusting, to say
> it nicely.
What is "disgusting" is trying to push through an RFC that doesn't have
broad consensus (for 5.6), while on the other hand effects way more
people that some people on this list want to make out.
Derick
--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine