Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2016
Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:26:24PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:08:33 +0100, ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari
>> Mannsåker) wrote:
>>
>>> On second though, though, standardising on Size_t and SSize_t will
>>> make things easier for upstream-blead dual-life modules (unless they
>>> all use Devel::PPPort and we add the defines there).
>>
>> Which is what I wanted to suggest. Make the core cleaner and have all
>> backward compat available in Devel::PPPort should only cause a *little*
>> extra effort on those XS modules that do not use it correct. It is
>> unlikely to affect end users and cpan clients
>
> My current preference is that core standardises on Size_t and SSize_t,
> and eliminates usage of size_t, ssize_t, STRLEN and MEM_SIZE.
I've pushed a branch smoke-me/ilmari/Size_t which converts all non-cpan/
uses of STRLEN and MEM_SIZE to Size_t, and uses of ssize_t to SSize_t.
I haven't touched the uses of size_t yet, since I'm unsure about whether
to convert ones that are used for libc APIs that are defined to use
size_t. It's safe to do, since $Config{sizetype} is size_t everywhere,
but it feels a bit pointless.
Any more votes the merits of (S)Size_t vs. (s)size_t?
--
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
the mainstream press' sense at least. - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
to a mainstream media article. - Calle Dybedahl
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next