function names again (goals and a questionnaire)

I'll try to summarize what we have so far. I think everybody agrees function names should follow a pattern, at least those in php/ext/*. PHP has had it already, though an informal one, and it has been used. However, it has not been used consistently, and a change should take place. There has been even talk about changing the order of arguments in some functions to gain more consistency. This would probably mean that such a function couldn't be just aliased, a new function would have to be created as a wrapper for the original. (If I'm wrong on this, somebody correct me.) However, firtst things first, and here's a list of steps that could be followed in this effort. The following text describes the 'maximum' scenario, and is laid from the basic stuff to the more sensitive things. The goals: 0. We need to agree on the extent of the changes. However, I don't believe this can be achieved by just discussing; actual work is needed, and I would suggest a permutation of Apache Group's commit voting: change is made if it gets certain number of +1's and no -1. The borders will become visible as we discuss individual functions. IMO the new stuff should be added to CVS _after_ we agree on the whole thing - and that means we need to have it finished first. 1. all extension functions should be named like this: <ext><underscore><action> e. g. mysql_fetch_array() 2. the <action> part of function name should be formalized too 2.1 as per Zeev's suggestion, we don't have to stop at putting an underscore between the <ext> and <action>. however, a compromise between the descriptiveness and desirable length needs to be found. 2.2 things like deg2rad / dechex / strtolower could use some cleanup too. and if we leave these as they are, we should agree on something for future functions. 2.3 what about functions like getallheaders()? sticking "apache_" in front of it isn't what we want, I guess. 3. the order of arguments would be changed to follow a common pattern. As soon as we agree on the extent and the shape of the changes, guidelines for authors of future enhancements should be written and placed somewhere so that they're easily accessible. These guidelines should probably instruct people to consult their function names here on php-qa and/or on php-dev. They should be written when and if we finish the 'cleanup', because it's likely we'll find situations where the theoretical rules we agree on will be inapplicable. However, the sooner the better, new extensions appear and the sooner we have it, the less work for everybody later. The questionnaire. Take these examples. What would you prefer? I'll collect your opinions, so the more replies, the better. 1. goal #1 goal #2.1(?) bcadd -> bc_add bccomp -> bc_comp -> bc_compare bcdiv -> bc_div -> bc_divide bcmod -> bc_mod -> bc_modulus bcmul -> bc_mul -> bc_multiply bcpow -> bc_pow -> bc_power bcscale -> bc_scale -> bc_scale bcsqrt -> bc_sqrt -> bc_square / bc_squareroot / bc_square_root bcsub -> bc_sub -> bc_subtract 2. What scheme do you prefer regarding goal 2.2? deg2rad / dechex / strtolower 3. (goal 2.3) How would you treat functions like getallheaders()? How would you alias this particular function should it need an alias? 4. What's your take on shuffling the order of arguments in the aliases? Should this happen at all? If so, what do you prefer: strpos() (strpos(haystack,needle)) or explode() (basically explode(needle,haystack))? ____________________________________________________________ Cynic: A member of a group of ancient Greek philosophers who taught that virtue constitutes happiness and that self control is the essential part of virtue. cynic@mail.cz