On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/05/14 06:46, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Independently of that: In a lot of the previous discussion people have
>>> many,
>>> >many, many times asked that this patch be implemented without all those
>>> >macros renames and zpp changes. I still have a hard time seeing the
>>> benefit
>>> >of doing that. The zpp changes also conflict with phpng, because S has a
>>> >different meaning (and imho for no good reason - it could just as well
>>> stay
>>> >at s).
>>>
>> This can be adapted, this is a details. It is also why I have tried
>> to get phpng and this patch along together and get both teams work
>> together. Cooperation in this case will be benefit for php as a whole
>> as more optimization can be achieve while keeping the safe&clean
>> implementation.
>>
>> As of now, phpng has been worked on for the last months, totally
>> privately. And even if it looks promising it is still not remotely
>> ready to be actually proposed. However it does not prevent you to use
>> it to stop other improvements, which have been worked on for months,
>> publically, with continuous tests, status updates, etc. I am not sure
>> what is happening here is good for PHP.
>>
>
> My personal impression is that phpng is yet another independent port of
> php just like HHVM and the like. These all target a particular area of PHP
> use and may not be suitable for 'home users'. As an alternative base for
> PHPNext it may have a better pedigree and to that end a decision needs to
> be made for the path forward. What seems totally out of place here is a
> vote on something which has no real target yet? Has phpng already been
> accepted as PHPNext? That PHPNext will be 64bit is a given? So what is the
> need for a vote on a 'detail that can be changed'? It's the detail elements
> that need to be agreed on ... not the principle of 64bit!
>
> Hopefully there is no plan to backport this to the PHP5 builds?
>
>
both the phpng and the size_t rfcs are targetting the next major version,
none of them are accepted yet, both of those would/will be suitable for
'home users'.
buth these are all public information, stated in the RFCs and discussed on
internals@ which you seems to be subscribed on based on your replies to the
list, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu