Re: [RFC] session_start(), read_only, lazy_write; Take 2
| From: | Yasuo Ohgaki | Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:34:22 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] session_start(), read_only, lazy_write; Take 2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-73460@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Julien,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net> wrote:
> > In order to avoid further arguments about whether a separate function
> > for read-and-close is better or not, I've added an alternative
> > proposal - to rename the option to 'read_close' or 'read_and_close'.
> > After all, the most important thing is that it's not 'read_only'.
>
>
> I agree "read_and_close" is much better discribing what it really does , so
> I prefer it.
I'm not sure if it's good to have "and" or not, but I'm OK with or without
"and".
Should I change it now?
I mean in my github repo.
I haven't committed the RFC patch yet.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net