Re: ctype function (re?)naming

From:	Andi Gutmans	Date:	Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:33:48 +0000
Subject:	Re: ctype function (re?)naming
References:	1 2 3 4 5	Groups:	php.dev php.qa
Request:	Send a blank email to php-dev+get-48134@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message

At 11:28 PM 3/6/2001 -0700, Zak Greant wrote:

Andi wrote: At 05:05 PM 3/6/2001 -0700, Zak Greant wrote:
Andi wrote: [snip] I don't have any complaints or helpful comments on what was above this.
3) Why change the imap ones to not include underscores? Looks as if
you
did
the reverse here :)
Removing the underscores was the choice that meant the least amount of change for the extension. :)
I think it's a wrong choice. If we're moving to a standard system which puts underscores in key places of the name, we shouldn't remove them from imap.
    I certainly don't have *any* problems adding underscores. :)  Removing
the
    underscores was my best attempt to be moderate. If we can get agreement
    on moving imap towards the naming convention, then I am more than happy
    to go along!

I think the Status Quo is better than removing them. So we should decide to either fix them or to leave them the way they are. Andi