Re: Re: convention about function naming II

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Zak Greant wrote: > Also, there was some discussion a few months ago about normalizing all of > the function names. > > We have a lot of functions that do not conform to the standard. IIRC, the > discussion on the phpdoc list was to create a conforming alias for each > non-conforming function and as time permits, document that the old names are > deprecated. Then perhaps next major release or two - PHP 5 or 6 -the old > names stop working. Just to note, one big problem will be the documentation. With one conforming to the rules and (one|two|three|...) non-conforming names, it's going to be a bit hard. Or at least a bit hard to use the documentation. I haven't seen any good solutions in DocBook XML for this. Tagging something as <note>... In PHP ?.--?.?, this function foo_bar_create was called FooBarCreate ...</note><note>... In PHP ?.?.--?, this function FooBarCreate was called FooBar ...</note> isn't it. Not that creating macros handling PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_SOMEDAY(foo, bar [, ...]) PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_VERY_SOON(foo, bar [, ...]) PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_REALLY_SOON_NOW(foo, bar [, ...]) PHP_FALIAS_WAS_DEPRECATED_AND_YOU_NEVER_READ_THE_WARNINGS(foo) PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_IN_PHP_5(foo, bar [, ...]) PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_IN_PHP_6(foo, bar [, ...]) will be so easy either. i.e., I mean fixing PHP extensions' code and using those macros... not fixing the code and, for the user, not reading any warnings generated is a bit too easy. But, if there can be found some reasonable way to document the change of a functions name, I could think of using at least the first one. Especially if Sascha goes to the 'macro-master' mood. -- Jouni > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jani Taskinen" <sniper@iki.fi> > To: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com> > Cc: "PHP Quality Assurance" <php-qa@lists.php.net>; "PHP Development" > <php-dev@lists.php.net> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:45 PM > Subject: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] convention about function > naming II > > > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > >I really want these name changes to make it into 4.0.4 or we'll be left > > >with backwards compatibility problems when releasing 4.0.5. > > >Sascha, I think we should have one last RC. We will end up having to keep > > >two versions of the function names which sucks. > > > > Shouldn't those socket extension's function names be changed too? > > > > --Jani