Re: Re: PEAR Karma

Your justifications sound good -- of course, I'd agree to anything PEAR has to say ;) I'll add the Text_ prefix to all my class names. Are there any other concerns ? Regards Louis P.-S. : Sorry for the so late reply. I've been having all sorts of DNS problems with my host. Alan Knowles wrote: >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 >>> >>> >>>