Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:38:38 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-31600@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Aidan Lister wrote:
I doubt this, the stigma that exists is propagated by people who enjoy having stigmas. They dislike PEAR because it's PEAR, not for any other reasonable reason.So who cares about them? These types of people are too lazy to fill in bug reports, communicate politely etc. I think there are enough appreciative users out there. Therefore your concerns are no concerns in my book. We should try to make PEAR fool proof, not asshole compatible.
No, he is argueing that ErrorStack fits into the PEAR prefix because its infrastructure code. The entire good/bad code thing was brought up by you. regards, LukasAre we going to underscore all good packages with PEAR_ then? Sorry, but I think this is highly stupid.You're arguing that because it's good code, it's okay to have PEAR in the name. I'm saying: well, are you going to prefix all packages with good code? My point is your point is not a point. It's not an argument for keeping PEAR in the name.