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

Pierre wrote: > Hello, > > On 7/12/06, Arnaud Limbourg <arnaud@limbourg.com> wrote: >> >> Besides that, "P_" is the most unsexy thing to use. Yes it's short, >> but >> >> frankly that would actually hurt PEAR, from a marketing prospective, >> > >> > Please and for my own sanity, leave marketing for other people. We try >> > to take technical and pragmatic decisions instead of focusing on some >> > irrelevant points... >> >> Well, marketing does matter, the question is usually how far you should >> take it. > > Well, not for this kind of decisions. I couldn't agree more. You don't need to market PEAR to PHP developers that are already using PEAR classes. Developers either know what PEAR is (and are probably using some PEAR classes) or they've been living under a rock, in which case it will take a little more than an internal naming convention to bring introduce them to PEAR. My <.02 is to wait for namespaces, as Alan suggested -- and, if necessary, to lobby PHP developers to make sure they are included. Hans