On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2014 7:42 PM, "Xinchen Hui" <larue...@php.net> wrote: > > > > Hey: > > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > > >> On 26 Dec 2014, at 05:57, Levi Morrison <le...@php.net> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> > wrote: > > >>> There's already ZEND_RESULT_CODE, or did I miss anything? > > >> > > >> According to lxr.php.net, this symbol ZEND_RESULT_CODE is not > > >> referenced in any place except its definition. We can begin using it > > >> if we like, or even rename it. Theoretically renaming it may break > > >> extensions; none that I could find reference it, though. > > > > > > Hey Levi, > > > > > > I think we should just rename it, it's a little too long. zend_status > or ZEND_STATUS would be fine with me, preferably the former since we tend > to use lowercase type names. Another possibility might be zend_result. > > > > > zend_status +1 > > > If you folks like, I could go ahead and write a patch for master to > rename it and use it in a bunch of places. > > > > great, thanks... please only added it to these functions who already > > use success/failure, don't change others :) > > We could just do the ones returning integer as status as a 2nd step, or in > the same commit. The latter would be cleaner. > I'm happy about Laruence's idea of unity and consistency. Having some APIS returns SUCCESS/FAILURE and others return 1/0 is a mess. +1 for consistency An enum looks like a good choice. Julien.P
