Hello Andi, yes i don't see a reason for a change either.
marcus Thursday, February 23, 2006, 3:02:46 AM, you wrote: > I think int is fine for this and we don't need to be super-accurate > on the unsigned for string length. This is how we work today and it's > a big change for no real gain. > At 01:15 AM 2/21/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >>Hello Dmitry, >> >>Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 7:45:17 AM, you wrote: >> >> > I don't like int32_t because >> >> > 1) it is defined in ICU. >> >> int32_t is defined in <stdint.h> by ansi c 89. >> >> > 2) I will need to rewrite a lot of existing functions to use >> int32_t instead >> > of int. >> >>3) Both int and int32_t are wrong. The only correct choice would be size_t. >> >>best regards >>marcus >> >> > Thanks. Dmitry. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:26 AM >> >> To: Andrei Zmievski; Dmitry Stogov >> >> Cc: php-i18n@lists.php.net >> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-I18N] Ideas for a portable string api >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there a reason why? >> >> We usually just use int/uint almost anywhere... Then again I don't >> >> really care because 32bit should be plenty (famous last >> >> words) for strings.... >> >> >> >> Andi >> >> >> >> At 10:16 PM 2/20/2006, Andrei Zmievski wrote: >> >> >I prefer to use fixed integer type, int32_t. >> >> > >> >> >-Andrei >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On Feb 20, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>Hi Andrei, >> >> >> >> >> >>We decide to use the same type for str.len (now int) and >> >> ustr.len (now >> >> >>int32_t, it comes from ICU). >> >> >> >> >> >>I prefer to make both of them - int. >> >> >>Any reclaims? I plan to do it at Thursday. >> >> >> >> >> >>Thanks. Dmitry. >> >> >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >> >> >>>From: Dmitry Stogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >>>Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:12 PM >> >> >>>To: php-i18n@lists.php.net >> >> >>>Subject: RE: [PHP-I18N] Ideas for a portable string api >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Hi, >> >> >>> >> >> >>>After reviewing Marcus ideas, some experiments and speaking with >> >> >>>Andrei. I propose the following solutions: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>1) We will not use any kind of unicode literals in C code >> >> (no L"foo" >> >> >>>no "f\0o\0o\0\0"), Because L"" is not portable and "f\0.." >> >> looks to >> >> >>>ugly. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>2) We will change "zval" structure to make >> >> "zval.value.str.len" and >> >> >>>"zval.value.ustr.len" of the same type. This will allow optimize >> >> >>>Z_UNISTR() and Z_UNILEN() macros. They will >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define Z_UNISTR(z) ((void*)(Z_STRVAL(z))) >> >> >>>#define Z_UNILEN(z) ((void*)(Z_STRLEN(z))) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Instead of >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define Z_UNISTR(z) >> >> >>>Z_TYPE(z)==IS_UNICODE?(char*)Z_USTRVAL(z):Z_STRVAL(z) >> >> >>>#define Z_UNILEN(z) >> >> >>>Z_TYPE(z)==IS_UNICODE?(int)Z_USTRLEN(z):Z_STRLEN(z) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>3) I don't like to break source compatibility with >> >> modification of >> >> >>>"zval" layout as Marcus suggested. We will pass >> >> string/unicode values >> >> >>>near in the same way as do today. As three values - >> >> zend_uchar type, >> >> >>>void* str, int len. But we will create a set of the >> >> following macros >> >> >>>to do it with less overhead. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define S_TYPE(x) _type_##x >> >> >>>#define S_UNIVAL(x) _val_##x >> >> >>>#define S_UNILEN(x) _len_##x >> >> >>>#define S_STRVAL(x) ((char*)S_UNIVAL(x)) >> >> >>>#define S_USTRVAL(x) ((UChar*)S_UNIVAL(x)) >> >> >>>#define S_STRLEN(x) S_UNILEN(x) >> >> >>>#define S_USTRLEN(x) S_UNILEN(x) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define S_ARG(x) zend_uchar S_TYPE(x), void >> >> >>>*S_UNIVAL(x), int >> >> >>>S_UNILEN(x) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define S_PASS(x) S_TYPE(x), S_UNIVAL(x), S_UNILEN(x) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS(x) Z_TYPE(x), Z_UNIVAL(x), Z_UNILEN(x) >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS_P(x) Z_TYPE_P(x), Z_UNIVAL_P(x), >> >> >>>Z_UNILEN_P(x) >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS_PP(x) Z_TYPE_PP(x), Z_UNIVAL_PP(x), >> >> >>>Z_UNILEN_PP(x) >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Then most zend_u_... Functions must be rewriten with these macros >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Foe example: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>ZEND_API int zend_u_lookup_class(S_ARG(name), >> >> zend_class_entry ***ce >> >> >>>TSRMLS_DC) >> >> >>>{ >> >> >>> return zend_u_lookup_class_ex(S_PASS(name), 1, ce >> >> >>>TSRMLS_CC); } >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Instead of >> >> >>> >> >> >>>ZEND_API int zend_u_lookup_class(zend_uchar type, void *name, int >> >> >>>name_length, zend_class_entry ***ce TSRMLS_DC) { >> >> >>> return zend_u_lookup_class_ex(type, name, >> >> name_length, 1, ce >> >> >>>TSRMLS_CC); } >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Any objections, additions? -- PHP Unicode & I18N Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
