Re: convention about function naming II

At 19:19 17/12/00 +0100, André Langhorst wrote:

I have searched through almost all extensions and discovered the following things: 1) a) is it proposed that experimental extensions *always* have to prefix their names and ought to put an EXPERIMENTAL file into their folder? if not I think it would make sense b) is anywhere defined if ext_* or ext* is the preferred naming, currently both are mixed up, I find ext_* more readable

ext_* is the convention.

c) I would suggest not to use very long function names to make people angry eg. "filepro","ingres","opensll","ovrimos","satellite" - I personally prefer using "fp","ingr","ossl","ovr" or "sat" is there any convention about this?

I prefer using long ones unless it really makes no sense. Short ones clobber the function table and are less readable. It's not a big deal to type an extra 3 chars.

2) unconventional function naming caught: a) ctype - already mentioned in README that the author (Harmut) does not know if adding a prefix or using C-Names is preferable, I think both are valid b) exif - read_exif_data (only one function)

Should be exif_read_data().

c) sockets andré --

· André Langhorst       · t: +49 571 3201801 ·

· waldschrott@php.net · m: +49 173 9558736 · · PHP Quality Assurance · http://qa.php.net · -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe@lists.php.net For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help@lists.php.net To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net

--- Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> http://www.zend.com/