Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Deprec ate functions with overloaded signatures

On 17 May 2023 08:35:18 BST, "Máté Kocsis" <kocsismate90@gmail.com> wrote: >Particularly, I have been wondering for a long time, why the original >function includes "save_handler" in its name? >The passed in handlers are not just "save", but also other kinds of >handlers (e.g. "read"). So I'm considering to use >something like "session_set_handlers()" or >"session_set_handler_callbacks()". What do you think about these names? I think that's a very good point, and I like the explicitness of "session_set_handler_callbacks" - this isn't a name people are going to need to type often, so there's not much reason to keep it short. If we go down that route, perhaps we should come up with a corresponding name for the object based version - "session_set_handler_object" perhaps? That would also mean the deprecation messages can be much simpler: if you're using the old name, you need to do something. (There's another minor fringe benefit: once the old name is removed, it becomes available for users to polyfill if for some reason they're struggling to change code that calls it.) I'm still in two minds on the general concept of this RFC, as it is placing a burden on users for the mostly minor convenience of maintainers; but I think you've done a good job responding to concerns and improving the proposal. Regards, Hi Máté, Sorry I didn't get round to replying to this sooner, particularly this point: -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]