Re: Re: PEAR Karma

On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 17:18 -0400, Louis Mullie wrote: I think you need to fix you mailer..? (this was posted in 2003 ;) > I agree on having the package in the Text category and I understand the > confusion it would've caused to place it in the PHP category. However, > I do not think that we should name it Text_Lexer : firstly, the package > lexes anything, not only text; I could not find the document which mentioned it, but from memory the reasons for not doing top level packages: - Had to have an over-riding justification for not prefixing category. It's also pretty usefull as all PECL packages dont use _ in the name, so you dont end up clashing if someone ever writes a Lexer extension.. > secondly, since this package needs its > own directory due to the number of files, the naming convention > would be respected with "Lexer"; finally, class names become > quite long (i.e., Text_Lexer_Generator_Regex ...), but this is a I win.. HTML_Template_Flexy_Compiler_Flexy_Tags Does Text_Lexer_Generator_Regex get exposed to the end user or is it just internal? This is rarely a concern, we only listen to that argument when you get to 3 levels in the class name ;) Regards Alan > simply aesthetical concern. > > What do you guys think ? > > - Louis > > Martin Jansen wrote: > > >On Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:0958PM +0800, Alan Knowles wrote: > > > > > >>We didnt really get anywhere on the naming thing, Calling it Text_Lexer, > >>and sticking it in the Text category seemed alot clearer to me, the only > >>thing similar in the PHP category is PHP_Parser, which only parses > >>PHP.. > >> > >>Views/Comments etc. would help... > >> > >> > > > >I agree. > > > >- Martin > > > > > > > -- Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com>