Re: Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2) /ext/date php_date.c php_date.h)

From:	Steph Fox	Date:	Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:29:54 +0000
Subject:	Re: 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	Groups:	php.internals
Request:	Send a blank email to internals+get-24518@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message

Hi Lukas,

Yep, that's a fair point. But at the same time, PEAR should be namespacing their classes - and in fact the date class in PEAR is breaking PEAR's own coding standards in that respect. Why should classes
Steph stay on topic. Date follows current PEAR naming standards just fine and its not even the topic anyways and taking shots at others is a lame attempt at giving your arguement more credit.

Actually I thought I was telling the truth, I'm not in the habit of taking shots at others in that way. Should've fact-checked, didn't.

The topic is what right we (PHP) want to claim for picking "obvious" identifiers? I tend to say that we should tell the world to prefix and keep internals free from a PHP prefix. We already prefix with the extension name (how does that tie in with the timezone functions in ext/date?).

We agree. - Steph

Is the only thing we are argueing about the naming btw? Or are there any technical issues in the new date extension beyond the naming issue? regards, Lukas