Re: Direction for the Function Renaming Effort

Zeev Suraski wrote: > 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... Are you saying that blindly adding an underscore between two truncated words is probably not the best solution. ; ) Point taken, we have a chance to help new users out by providing them with function names that make more sense. BTW Thanks for joining the discussion Zeev! Would it be presumptuous to assume that you think the function renaming effort is a good idea? :) --zak