Re: Error_Stack

On 16 Mar 2004 at 10:53, Greg Beaver wrote: > It's looking like Error_Stack is liked. It will become a part of the > core PEAR package (unless a bunch of -1s come in), which requires a name > change. I feel PEAR_Error_Stack is both a little long and a little > misleading (it's not a stack of PEAR_Errors). How about PEAR_ErrorStack or similar? Not shorter, I know. > Does anyone have opinions on PEAR_ErrStack as a name? But if Stack is misleading, then why would you name it that way? Imho having two more characters ("o" plus "r") and making the word "Error" complete is better that leaving people without any knowledge what or who might be Err. We surely know what's meant, but will all people know that should use it? Setfan