Re: ctype function (re?)naming

Phil wrote: > Prodigious work Zak - well done. This certainly represents a useful > initial tidy up. It doesn't break anything and cures many of the > 'bad offenders'. Thanks Phil - I expect that closer examination will reveal how sloppy it is! :) > In looking through the unchanged function names, the one that screamed 'I > am wrong' most loudly was 'velocis_off_autocommit' which appears to set > new standards in unusual word order :) Point in case. ;) I must admit that this is *quite* odd and should be fixed. > As you may have gathered from my previous posts on the subject, I want to > aim much higher than this, but as I gather from everyone else's posts, I'm > in a small minority. I see no reason for the syntax of PHP being any less > than 'very good indeed', so if anyone else is in that minority, without > detracting from the work that Zak has proposed, can we keep this > discussion thread alive because I'm sure that there must be a way of > bolting a clean version of the language onto the existing engine, and surely PHP > 5.0 is the landmark for it's introduction. I also believe that PHP should be very much cleaner than it is now. However, I am going keep my opinions to myself 'til the basic renaming stuff is sorted out!!!! --zak