On Thursday 08 June 2006 09:20, Nick Kew wrote: > It seems to me that the current practice is perfectly consistent with other > parts of apr_util. Let's just review the apr-util headers for all modules > containing functions names having a noun and a verb in: > > [chop lists]
> In both camps: > apr_ldap_url > apr_memcache > apr_xml Of course, apr_dbd itself is in fact in both camps, because it uses noun_verb for its transaction functions. Anyway, I think the point is made that there isn't a consistent standard to follow. To introduce one now - even as a 2.0 thing - would be far too disruptive to make sense. -- Nick Kew
