Re: Direction for the Function Renaming Effort

Phil Driscoll wrote: > Zak wrote: > >Note: I still think that we should just focus on fixing the obviously > >broken bits for the short term! :) > > While there are a number of decent brains mulling over this problem, I would > be inclined to hold off for a short while in case someone comes up with a > fantastic solution. There's a danger, I think, that the ideal solution may > not follow any of the lines so far discussed, and if time has been spent > fettling some aliases and the new solution doesn't work that way, (a) the > work may have been done in vain, and (b) those who did that work may be less > than receptive to the good solution! Nay, nay dear friends, Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of heedless change; :) Seriously, there will be time for lots of discussion as the initial work is put into place. We will need to figure out what names are bad, how to fix them, etc.. I would not be surprised if we have at least a few weeks before anything concrete happens - even if we whip this thing as hard as we can. :) > In a sense, it does not matter too much how radical the best solution to > this problem is as long as: > > Existing code continues to work (even if a php.ini switch is required) > An automatic script converter is made available (only problem might be any > tortuous eval stuff) > We stick with the spirit of PHP (i.e. still easy to learn and use, still > does the same stuff) - and - it can be implemented and maintained by mere mortals! :) > Additional constraints seem to be (from Hellekin's interpretation of the > current consensus) > standard c (and other language) function names should be kept > verbosity is preferred over terseness > > Just to add another element to the discussion, currently PHP does not give a > hoot about the case of letters in the internal function names. If it did, > would that help us find a good solution here? You mean something like: UPPERCASE = naughty lowercase = preferred ? --zak