On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Johannes Schlüter <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 13:11 +0100, Jakub Zelenka wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Johannes Schlüter >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > > I was a bit confused as zif/zim is wrapped by macros and affects only >> OO >> > > stuff ... and PHP 4 and OO sounds unlikely >> > > >> > > >> > There are these lines in the code that make a compile error >> > PHP_METHOD(fannOO, __set) >> > ... >> > zend_internal_function fe_set, fe_get; >> > fe_set.handler = ZEND_FN(fannOO___set); >> > ... >> > error: ‘zif_fannOO___set’ undeclared >> >> Ah, that's indeed a ug in the code. That should not be done. function != >> method. :) >> Anyways not directly related to the original issue. So what do you >> guysprefer: >> >> - Reusing the name >> or >> - using fann2 >> >> johannes >> >> > Sorry for top posting in previous email, please ignore it... Personally I would prefer reusing the name. I don't think that there are any users of the old extension as it hasn't been working for a long time and the libfann 1 is not available anyway. We could still leave the old sources for downloading. I would just release a new version of the extension which would be 2.0 (that actually shows that it's for the new version of libfann 2). I could add a note to the description that API for 2.0 is not backward compatible with 1.x as it is for example in imagick extension. I am not against fann2 but the reusing name in this case probably makes more sense and will be easier to maintain. Is it ok with everyone? Jakub
