On November 14, 2003 06:19 am, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Yes, but that is concerning legacy functions when we were too dumb to do > the right thing.
I don't think the old method of function naming is necessarily bad. If anything it helps people who come from C/C++ environment since the functions they are already familiar are readily avaliable under the same name. For functions that are completely new, I wouldn't even bother to argue and just rename it. But in this case I think it would be counter intuitive to name the function by anything else other then it's C equivalent. This is especially apparent in this case since not a single time related function has a time_* prefix, making it very difficult to find this function in a manual search etc...
Ilia,
We have had this discussion before and the dev team came to an agreement that we're going to do our best to keep to the naming conventions for new functions. Especially as nanosleep is not an extremely important function I see no problem with it following the correct naming conventions even if it makes it harder to find (which I doubt).
The only reason why we're not cleaning up all functions retroactively is because we don't want to break every PHP script out there. But then again, this discussion has already taken place in the past.
Andi
-- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
