Re: Direction for the Function Renaming Effort

I don't particularly like str_tok() kind of functions. My view is that standard C-like functions should remain with their standard names, and not added aliases that only add underscores. The reason for this is simple - the C function names are extremely short, and they don't only save in the underscores, but in the words themselves. For instance, if we were to add a human-readable version of strtok(), it should probably be something like string_tokenize() or str_tokenize(). If we're adding aliases, let's not limit ourselves to just adding underscores, but actually try to make them readable... Zeev At 01:35 7/2/2001, Zak Greant wrote:

To make my position explicit: +1 make every function name comply with the standards. +1 for providing friendly aliases for well-known (all the str*, etc... gribblies) functions [1] +1 for leaving the core, cross-language functions as they are (printf, ord, chr...) [1] For example: strtok could be called as strtok or str_tok. --zak -- PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-qa-unsubscribe@lists.php.net For additional commands, e-mail: php-qa-help@lists.php.net To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net

-- Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> CTO & co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/