Re: [Fwd: [PHP-DEV] PHP Module for reading/writing Palmtop .PDB files..]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:50:31 -0500 (EST), Joao Prado Maia wrote: > > >It's like you ignored my reasoning for saying the above. Can you explain > >how is PEAR going to enforce the coding standards on the C extension > >authors ? From what you are saying, we should probably send an email to > >the imagick extension author asking him to PEARify his function names ;) > > Extensions that are not compliant to the PEAR coding standards, > but that are compliant to the PHP coding standards (for C code), > go to pear/PECL. > Oh ok, I was under the impression that the PEAR coding standards for PHP code would be applied to eventual extensions on PECL. > >Anyway, what's going to be here ? I vote for leaving the PECL alone in > >regards of the coding standards, it's just impossible to try to enforce > >something like that. > > Why shouldn't enforcing the coding standards for C code be impossible > if it is possible for PHP code? > I guess we are entering a loop of confusion here. I was referring to enforcing the PEAR coding standards to the C code (ala - making the function naming compliant and all that). I wasn't talking about the existing PHP coding standards, but about PEAR one (the one we use for the PHP code that is submitted to PEAR). Enforcing the function naming convention to the C code would be pretty bad for backwards compatibility methinks. Anyway, I guess it was just a miss-understanding on both parts. Cheers, Joao -- João Prado Maia <jpm@phpbrasil.com> http://phpbrasil.com - php com um jeitinho brasileiro -- Precisando de consultoria em desenvolvimento para a Internet ? Impleo.net - http://impleo.net/?lang=br