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

Just +1 :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com> To: "Ron Chmara" <ron@Opus1.COM> Cc: "PHP Development" <php-dev@lists.php.net>; <php-qa@lists.php.net> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] ctype function (re?)naming > RC>> It's more legible for the same reason that it's easier (and > RC>> faster) to read "one two three" than "onetwothree". The human > RC>> mind can easily tokenize at the appropriate places, when it has > RC>> a token. Without a token, the string is much harder to parse. > > For me, "isalpha" is single token. That's the name, much like Johnson or > Chandrabharmata. > > RC>> There's several, in order of use: ldap_connect, ldap_bind, ldap_search. > RC>> Without looking in the manual, I _don't_ have to guess if it's ldap_search > RC>> or ldapsearch. Which is my entire point. I know the ldap functions were > > Exactly. Because you don't know the "search" part, wondering on underscore > is useless. That's my point. I repeat it once more, to be clear: > ======== > Functions that have "well known" names should not be touched. That > includes fopen (not open_file, neither file_open or filesystem_open_file, > thankyouverymuch), isaplha, ImageGif, etc., etc. Functions that do not > have established names (like most third-party libraries) can be named by > any standard that feels warm on your heart, I have no objection on this. > ======== > > RC>> I didn't check a manual. Ldap functions aren't named in a mixed fashion > RC>> of word_wordword and word_word_word. They follow the *most common* PHP > RC>> syntax of using word_word_word. > > Don't try to make me believe you remember all the "non-underscore" part of > all functions by hard and your only problem is knowing where's the > underscore. > > RC>> To stop confusing the *language*, as a whole, we should be doing this with > RC>> some consistency, so we're not confusing people as they try to learn new > RC>> function names. They shouldn't have to guess, or read the manual, just > RC>> to figure out the "proper spacing" in invoking it. > > That's not "confusing". That's "remaining in touch with the rest of > the > known world". I do not want function to open file be > "filesystem_open_file". I want my old trusty fopen. It served me well for > years.