[PEPr] Comment on RFC::Prefix all packages with P_

Scott Mattocks (http://pear.php.net/user/scottmattocks) has commented on the proposal for RFC::Prefix all packages with P_. Comment: Does this RFC really address a real world need? This is the first I have heard of the Date/PEAR::Date issue. And it doesn't even seem like that big of an issue. I have used PEAR in every project I have ever worked on and not once needed to use PEAR::Date (no offense to the maintainers of that lovely package). I think the phrase "which broke nearly all applications using PEAR" is a bit dramatic. Plus, the problem now can only exist if you are using an outdated version of PHP. Would it be nice if all packages in PEAR were commonly prefixed? Sure. But doing so now will cause many more headaches than it solves. It creates a maintenance nightmare to solve an issue that does not currently exist. This is a nice idea in theory but I don't think it translates well into practice. P.S. Why not just create Date2 which would be PHP5 (and E_STRICT)? Non-existent problem solved. Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=420 -- Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net