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

Addressed to: Distribution list (see below) ** Reply to note from Ron Chmara <ron@Opus1.COM> Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:36:38 -0700 > > Well, then defining "well known" may also become an issue. Well known > by whom? C programmers? Perl Hackers? Java users? Yes! If we are importing their concepts or libraries, use the existing terms. If I do a man fopen and get information on how to use fopen, PHP should call it fopen, not file_open or whatever else we might come up with. If I read the instructions for library foo and all the documentation talks about function wordword, then I think the php function should be foo_wordword because that is what all the foo documentation is going to call it. Everyone who is familiar with foo will expect the function to be called wordword, not word_word. WordWord is not an issue here, php will run it either way. > The users of a particular PHP module? No. We have control of the PHP side. We don't have to worry about the installed base of C programmers who expect fopen, or people who have used the foo library that expect the function to be called wordword. That said, be careful naming experimental and future libraries, and be very slow forcing changes of existing functions. Remember, this only aplies to new stuff in PHP. Importing a library should use the naming convention of that library with a php defined prefix_ to identify the library. Rick Widmer Internet Marketing Specialists http://www.developersdesk.com Distribution list: ron@Opus1.COM Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> PHP Development <php-dev@lists.php.net> php-qa@lists.php.net ron@Opus1.COM