Re: Re: cvs: php-src / php.ini-dist php.ini-recommended /sapi/cgi cgi_main.c
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:52:36 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: cvs: php-src / php.ini-dist php.ini-recommended /sapi/cgi cgi_main.c | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-7718@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 00:10 11/02/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well we do tend to be verbose in PHP even when it's non-standard.
> > > > I'd really prefer cgi.non_parsing_headers.
> > >
> > > It should be common_gateway_interface.non_parsing_headers then...
> >
> >Yeah, nph is pretty much as well-known as cgi. The people who are
> >affected by this will all know and understand "nph".
>
> I wouldn't say nph is nearly as well known as CGI, but either way, is there
> any reason not to go with something more verbose? I do agree that most
> people who need nph would know what it is, but even for people that do, a
> more verbose name doesn't reduce readability (as long as we don't get
> carried away with common_gateway_interface...).
Well, I would grep or search in my editor for "nph" if I was looking for a
toggle for this. My search would not find the more verbose directive.
-Rasmus