Re: PEAR Coding Standards question

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote: > Cool we will try to get this straighted out and updated in the docs after > the next meeting. I was about to write a separate mail to you guys, but reading this I trust that isn't necessary anymore. > Auto updating of formating sounds like a good idea. Well there also are some compelling arguments against it: http://pear.php.net/manual/en/package.php.php-codesniffer.faq.php And it's probably a good thing that a PEAR package doesn't attempt to modify existing code in such a way. There will always be people who don't RTM, put their trust in PEAR, and destroy their applications/businesses/lives. Still I find myself in a position where I - already know the PEAR Coding standards, new code is compliant - am confronted with loads of legacy code by different authors - am willing to review & test modified scripts afterwards, and to take responsibility for errors it may create Though it backs up files, checks syntax afterwards, and currently fixes about 95% of the warnings & errors, the fact that the modified source cannot be guaranteed to be 100% bug-free, will make it a poor PEAR package I guess. -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Kevin van Zonneveld http://kevin.vanzonneveld.net