Re: ctype function (re?)naming

>RFC: what should their names be in 4.0.5? > > ( ) stay with ctype_alpha() ... > (X) switch to ctype_isalpha() ... > ( ) switch to ctype_isalpha() ... and have ctype_alpha() aliases > ( ) switch to ctype_is_alpha() ... > ( ) switch to ctype_is_alpha() ... and have ctype_alpha() aliases > (X) have an alias if isalpha() > A heated argument seems to be developing, which IMHO makes no sense when we are discussing a tiny corner of the language. Yes, function names should be consistent, however because the current namespace is such a mess it is impossibly to argue the toss on this issue because all we can do is make the function name compatible with one (or more) of a range of inconsistent 'standards' throughout the language. It HAS to be time for a big tidy up, as it is clearly impossible to 'do the right thing' under current circumstances. Cheers -- Phil Driscoll Dial Solutions +44 (0)113 294 5112 http://www.dialsolutions.com http://www.dtonline.org