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

I post my suggestions later today. :) --zak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com> To: <ron@Opus1.COM> Cc: "Zak Greant" <zak@nucleus.com>; "Phil Driscoll" <phil@dialsolutions.co.uk>; "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>; "PHP Development" <php-dev@lists.php.net>; <php-qa@lists.php.net> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV]ctype function (re?)naming > We should probably just make a list of all the effected functions and see > which ones we start fixing and which not. > And of course it has to be a very gradual death of the old functions > similar to the way described on the QA list a while ago about having a > warning after a few versions and only then nuking the aliases. > By the way, we already have some ugly aliases today which I'd love to nuke :) > > But guys, there's one thing you need to remember and I've seen it in the > past. The amount of people you think will get bitten by something this > small is usually 10 times more than you really think :'( > > Andi > > At 09:24 PM 3/1/2001 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote: > >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > It doesn't make much sense to go back and break old names and it doesn't > > > make lots of sense to create a zillion of aliases. I guess if there are > > some > > > names which in particular need fixing because they are terrible (there > > > might be some of these) then we should fix them on a per-function basis. > > > >"zillion" is a bit hard to pin down, isn't it? :-) > > > >I took a swipe at figuring out the scope of the issue, and we have a > >small mix of variants in a mostly consistent set of names. I'd say less > >than a zillion. A bunch or so, maybe? ;-) > > > >If done as a "think about this when updating and editing old code" problem, > >the task of aliasing becomes much smaller, and much more achievable. It > >also becomes less wasteful, as functions which aren't being actively > >used (and thus, maintained) can atrophy gracefully, without having all > >sorts of aliases created for a mostly unused function. (Example: Oracle > >functions are slowly falling away, being replaced by OCI, swf functions > >are doing a similar thing.) > > > > > I am for uniform names but not if it's at the price of adding a zillion of > > > aliases or at a price of making 50% of people's old scripts not work. I am > > > also very much against compile-time options because I'd expect a script > > > written in PHP and posted on some sites code exchange to work for > > everybody. > > > >I'd definitely agree with both points, but am wondering if there's a > >"reasonable" > >limit on supporting old scripts. (I'd call reasonable 6 years worth of > >code, or three major codebase rewrites). > > > >(Thanks for the humor Zak, it helps... I'm gonna go cry, hold onto > >my woogie, and see if I can remember heim_unblock()) > >:-) > > > >-Bop > > > >--2D426F70|759328624|00101101010000100110111101110000 > >Personal: ron@opus1.com, 520-326-6109, > >http://www.opus1.com/ron/ > >Work: rchmara@pnsinc.com, 520-546-8993, > >http://www.pnsinc.com/ > >The opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily those of myself, > >my employers, or any of the other little voices in my head. > >