Re: What's our official stance on small self-containedadditionsin a micro version

Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> Hmm, would you consider introducing a new function in the *global* >> namespace to be a self-contained feature? I would not, because the > > Depends on the function. It it's properly prefixed and does not rely or > disrupt anything else then yes. Otherwise, no. But what is "properly prefixed"? Is there a list of reserved prefixes? >> function definition would change the global environment, possibly >> breaking some code. > > You can always invent some code that depends on exact state of the > universe in the moment (https://xkcd.com/1172/) but let's be reasonable > - if somebody stuck their function into intl_* or mysql_* namespace > whatever happens next is on them. I agree. However, there are other "namespaces" which are not so special, especially for beginners, for instance, array_* and str_*. And of course, someone might consider it to be reasonable to invent a new function in userland which is an extension of some existing function, therefore giving it a similar name, e.g. preg_replace_callback_array(). Would that be considered to be bad style? If so, where is it documented? I'm aware that I'm nit-picking, and that the probability of such collisions is near zero, but it is not equal to zero. -- Christoph M. Becker