Re: Consistent function names

On 03/03/2015 07:34 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Michael Schuett <michaeljs1990@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Your evaluation is pretty anecdotal. I agree with some points but you need >> some solid evidence if you are going to rate these languages. Also do you >> have a list of all the functions you would like to rename or is this a >> sweeping lets just change everything so it matches and deprecate all the >> old stuff. Your matrix is a very weak push to do so. If you want to make >> these changes it would be better to choose a select set such as the array >> functions and try and push that through or see what that change might look >> like and if it's really beneficial to userland. > > > I agree that my evaluation is subjective. For example, I rate PHP has "1" > security only > because PHP is very weak against script/file inclusions because it's fatal > and other > languages apps do not have script/file inclusions as PHP apps do. Others > might > rate "2" or even "3" because it is too easy to fix it even if incident is > fatal. > (Security should be evaluated by "how difficult to make mistakes", not "how > easy to > fix mistakes" generally. IMHO) > > I made list of rename candidates > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_function_names#list_of_functions_to_be_renamed > If you have suggestions, I appreciate! Yasuo, please stop. This isn't going to happen. Changing strlen() to str_len() is just ridiculous. -Rasmus

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc