Re: intl 1.0.0RC1

Hi, Here's my user point of view, if you don't mind. I think your argument is about namespaces, which will be in 6 but not 5.2... So you might want to have IntCollator and IntLocale in 5.2 to avoid possible collisions, but you would rather have something like Intl::Collator and Intl::Locale from 5.3 and 6 onward. I guess the question is: can you bear with Collator and Locale until we have namespaces? I know I can. Guillaume Rossolini On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Yes. Why can't it be IntlCollator in both 5.x and 6.x? In other words >> (unless I'm missing something) compatibility between 5.x and 6.x doesn't >> affect the naming choice. >> > > The thing is that having collators in PHP called IntlCollator and locales > in PHP called IntlLocale sucks. It looks so awkward and artificial. > > I'm advocating uniformity for the sake of usability :-). (for reasons >> > > I don't see how IntlLocale is more usable than Locale. If you'd be total > stranger to all the things discussed here and I'd tell you - there's a thing > called "locale", what do you think would be the name of the class that works > with it - would you answer "Locale" or "IntlLocale"? > > already given). (I'm a freelance programmer, working on real-world >> i18n-related code, not an ivory tower academic.) >> > > OK, great - and you'd prefer all your functions and classes to have prefix > Intl because of that? I know I wouldn't. I would like to have class named > Locale to work with locales. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com > > -- > PHP Unicode & I18N Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >