Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

Bertrand Mansion wrote:

Greg, don't be so mean with Aidan. I posted my other mails before reading yours. IMO, you should take these comments into consideration even if they look stupid for you at first glance. I think you have a lot to gain by simply going from PEAR_ErrorStack to Error_Stack or something like that. Personally, I'd more willing to use your package if it were renamed. Having PEAR_ in your package name usually means that the package extends PEAR. If that's not the case, it is misleading : why add this fake dependency to an otherwise useful and lightweight package. Again, this might look like marketing and communication, but I am sure this will help acceptance of your package among other developers.

Well I think it should keep the PEAR_ prefix as its infrastructure code. People who are too ignorant to understand that software products have a development cycle may be a target audience for commercials products who try to sell their products. I for one have accepted the stupid FUD as a reality that we cannot change and that we should definately develop around. regards, Lukas