Re: Direction for the Function Renaming Effort

> This is not as easy, and there are things that I think _deserve_ > to be agreed on (even if we only aggree to disagree): Take the ctype > extension as an example. I really don't know anything about ctype, and am not finding the docs on php.net If it's an *extension* -- IE, something that can be added/subtracted from the default using --with-xxx or --without-xxx, then I'm all for re-naming them to whatever is consistent. > Ok, but then we need a definition of a core function. Is nl2br a core > function? Is bindec a core function? Which one do you like more? If > you don't want to change either regardless of your preference, do you > think that such functions coming in future could follow a set of rules? > If so, how would you put it? [definition] Core Function: Function such that you simply cannot compile PHP without including it. Example: If I sit down and do: ./configure --without-apxs --without-mysql --without-ftp --without-xxx... for every possible xxx, whatever functions are left in that binary, are core functions. nl2br and bindec are both core functions. I don't know how many more core functions to expect to see... But I'd just as soon have them be the same name as their underlying C/OS/Perl counterparts if they are thinly-disguised wrappers for them.