Re: [PHP4BETA] New function chrcount

Nope and I also vote for substr_count() and so does Zeev who suggested it in the first place :) Andi On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Cynic wrote: > I'm probably late (it's 10AM here), but I vote for substr_count(). > > At 00:55 25.4.2000 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote the following: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > >At 12:52 AM 4/25/00 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote: > >>At 04:45 PM 4/24/00 -0500, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > >>>On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Colin Viebrock wrote: > >>> > How about num_times_char_is_in_string()? :) > >>> > > >>> > I'm still rooting for str_chr_freq(), or even just chr_freq(). I realize > >>> > that etyomologists may cringe at the inexact use of "frequency", > >>> > but > >>> > "char_occurence" and "char_tally" look or sound funny, > >>> > and and agree > >>> > with Andi that "*_count" is kina ambiguous. > >>> > > >>> > How about str_matches() or chr_matches() ? > >>> > >>>Well, this is ambiguous too. Is "matches" a noun or a verb here? > >> > >>What is ambiguous is str_count(). It barely gives you a clue of what the function does. > >>num_str_matches() might be more appropriate. Don't save a few characters just > >>because you want to type less, it is more important that you find a name which makes sense and that > >>the function's behavior can more or less be understood by its name. > > > >Another possiblity is: > >substr_count() > ------end of quote------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > ICQ: 2808 2505 > > > > >