Re: SplObjectStorage
| From: | Jeff Moore | Date: | Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:11:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: SplObjectStorage | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-21736@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Jan 28, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
Why not? "Betty" is only slightly more vague than "Storage." A vague name is nobody's friend. Here is a sitepoint thread where a use of SplObjectStorage is discussed. http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339769 I'm just trying to point out that the class may have a broader use than the context in which it was conceived and that the name could better reflect its function. AFAIK, SplObjectStorage is targeted for PHP 6. I'm not suggesting changing something that has been in PHP for half a decade. Is this not the appropriate time and place to give feedback about API design issues? Best Regards, JeffTo give SplObjectStorage a better name. My best suggestion is SplUniqueObjectContainer. There may be a better choice.Why not just call it Betty.