Re: [PEPr] +1 for Math::Math_Finance

Alejandro Pedraza wrote: >Thanks Helgi and Matt, I appreciate your comments. > >I understand your concerns about the coding standards. The function names >are like that because the principal goal of this package is to provide the >same interface as Excel's financial functions, which are all uppercase >abbreviations. Moreover, the financial litterature does the same. So I think >we can make an exception here without hurting too much PEAR's standards. > > Yes, I understand that you are trying to mimic Excel's financial functions, but you must remember that this is PEAR, not Excel. The PEAR coding standards exist for a reason, and should not be broken. All of the functionality is still there if you use PEAR compliant method names, so it won't really hurt anything. Perhaps change the method names to PEAR compliant, and make a note in the docblock comment of the method like "This is the same as function XXXX in Excel", or something like that. In my opinion we cannot break coding standards. If they are broken once, it will set a trend, and perhaps will continue to be broken again, defeating the purpose of standards, or people will look and wonder why package does not follow standards. --Matt