Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
hi,
Reviewing the votes and the arguments for the votes (negative or
positive), it seems that there is a little confusion or I miss the
reasoning behind the votes about the options.
The option #1 (Keep the old macro names for LONG vs. INT, STRLEN vs.
STRSIZE, etc.) and #2 (Keep zpp specs l, L, s, p as aliases to i, I,
S, P), which both drastically reduce code changes or #fidef usage, are
valid for 5.6 integration.
In the case this RFC is rejected for 5.6, these options are really not
what is planed to do for 6.x as we should do it the clean way, as
explained in the various discussions here and as many of the
opposition used as argument as well.
For those having voted no for 5.6 and the options, would you mind
explaining what are your wishes? It will help to move forward, no
matter the outcome of the votes.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org