Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2)/ext/date php_date.c php_date.h)
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:34:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2)/ext/date php_date.c php_date.h) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-24472@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Lukas Smith wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:I think pear should be doing that regardless of any PHP internals decision. -RasmusI think we need to rename it. php_date or _date or something. I don't really care what the name is, but I think we are too late in the game to get the 'date' identifier. The other functions enabled are fine and quite necessary actually. Both timezone_abbreviations_list() and timezone_identifiers_list() are quite useful.This is a very key decision to make as we add new OO features, and other abstract types. Does PHP reserve a right to claim obvious identifiers or should PHP require from itself to namespace things like this with a prefix (php_)? Regardless what decision we make I think its high time that we document what approach we want to take. A while ago I proposed such a standard [1], but it obviously requires a decision from internals to be of any merit. In the proposed document I gave PHP the right to claim whatever identifiers it chooses, therefore pushing up the responsibility of prefixing identifiers to end users (including PEAR).