Re: Re: RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] ctype function (re?)naming

Phil wrote: > Ron - whose postings I normally agree with :-) - wrote: As do I :) [snip] > I know that Zak has been doing some experiments along these lines, but has > also been busy on other projects. Any news to report Zak? I now have less hair that I did before starting. ;) Finding sensible consistent names for the function is somewhat of an undertaking. I am still working on it.... I have been twiddling away with a few ideas and have come to some conclusions. Naming is broken. ============ Points in case: defined, function_exists, isset and class_exists... We should have a set of standard verbs that we use for cases like this. I would like to see something like: function_defined class_defined var[iable]_defined constant_defined We can't agree ========== No consensus on this issue can be reached. We seem to have several schools of thought on this issue. Here are my bitter, narrow, soft-headed and sarcastic views on them: Deny the existence of a problem :) -------------------------------- There is no problem with the function names. So stop yer whining or we'll make you use Damian Conway's Lingua::Romana::Perligata instead of PHP. Well, ok... there may be a problem, but I am not convinced of it. And if there were a problem, we need a better way to fix it than has been yet proposed. Live in eternal fear of backwards compatibility :) ---------------------------------------------- When issues of function renaming arise, frighten all the little hackers with stories of how the villagers will rise against us if we break backwards compatibility with PHP 2. Refuse to relinquish old C function names :) ----------------------------------------- At the first sign of any change to the function names, cling tightly to your 'woogie' and begin to cry. They can't make you give up your woogie - why, you;'d rather shave off your beard and give up your suspenders than live life without your woogie. Bite off more than you can chew :) --------------------------------- Attempt to swallow large issues in a single bite and end up choking on your wishful thinking. Core developers stand around you and make bets on what color your face will turn before someone remembers the function name for the Heimlich manuever (is that apply_heimlich_manuever, heim, heimApp, windpipe_clear... or was it set_socket_blocking (FALSE) Expand the scope of the argument :) ---------------------------------- Expand the argument scope until it encompasses almost every aspect of the language. Wonder why everone else looks at you like you are a large cockroach. Hamstring the discussion :) ------------------------- Ignore the thread til it looks like it is getting somewhere, then unload one crippling message and retreat from the ensuing carnage. Seriously, this is a bugger to resolve! I don't think that there is a hope in hell on getting consensus on this issue. The only solutions I see are: --------------------------- Add an extra module that implements sane names. This would be a compile-time option that is disabled by default. Include methods to translate scripts between the two naming scheme. Include tools to make coding easier, including Hartmut's handy function looker-upper widget (basically, if you use an unknown function name, PHP attempts to recommend a proper function name for you to use.) In the off chance that we can get consensus, either: Start a ground up rework of the language for PHP 5. Audit the source code and fix the outstanding gremlins. I suspect that this has about as much chance happening as most of us have of becoming male models. Implement one of the moderate proposals that many of us have already outlined. Fork the codebase - start a variant called H_P_H (Hypertext Preprocessor::Hypocoristic) with sensible names ; )\ In any case, it is 4 in the morning over here and I still have work to do. I hope that this makes some sense. --zak