Re: PEAR::Date broken (Was: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src(PHP_5_2)/ext/date php_date.c php_date.h)
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:58:32 +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-24554@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Lukas,
in a dreamworld everyone would prefix all obvious/easy names as they
are by their nature likely to cause clashes.
[Marcus falling a sleep and hitting the send key]
best regards
marcus
Tuesday, July 18, 2006, 4:31:11 PM, you wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> I 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).
> regards,
> Lukas
> [1] http://oss.backendmedia.com/UserlandNamingGuide
Best regards,
Marcus