Re: Prefixing names of new filter functions with filter_

On 14/09/06, Pierre <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

<snip>

I'm very happy to finally have a discussion about the final API but I'm really disappointed to have this dicussion only a couple of days before 5.2.0. Are my mails in internals filtered by your MUA?

Hey Pierre: I suspect that, it being summer for many of us for the past few months, it was hard to focus on much outside of our direct projects. For myself, for example, I was kind of busy with a new project called "Baby Amber" (well, that and learning a bit more about PEAR). Also, reviewing the functionality (does it do what its supposed to? Yep? Good!) and coding (no memleaks? passes all .phpt tests? Good!) requires a different mindset than checking for coding standards. I think saying something direct like "Hmm, shouldn't these functions be prefixed with filter_ ?" made it a lot more concrete for people (and enabled them to quickly say "yes", "no", or "almost but not quite..."). I also think its natural that nobody wants to step on the toes of somebody getting something really important done with comments as trivial as API naming style -- and ext/filter is definitely seen as important. We do need someone committed to reviewing proposed additions to PHP core from an API / style approach. Lukas certainly did a lot of this in the past! Maybe making it a part of the RC or "add to core" checklist (and/or a tool that checks /ext/(.+)/ to ensure that all defined functions are $1_blah, with the exception of current exceptions) would help avoid this sort of late discussion in the future. Dan