Phil wrote:
> Ron - whose postings I normally agree with :-) - wrote:
As do I :)
[snip]
> I know that Zak has been doing some experiments along these lines, but has
> also been busy on other projects. Any news to report Zak?
I now have less hair that I did before starting. ;) Finding sensible
consistent names for the function is somewhat of an undertaking. I am still
working on it....
I have been twiddling away with a few ideas and have come to some
conclusions.
Naming is broken.
============
Points in case: defined, function_exists, isset and class_exists...
We should have a set of standard verbs that we use for cases like this. I
would like to see something like:
function_defined
class_defined
var[iable]_defined
constant_defined
We can't agree
==========
No consensus on this issue can be reached.
We seem to have several schools of thought on this issue. Here are my
bitter, narrow, soft-headed and sarcastic views on them:
Deny the existence of a problem :)
--------------------------------
There is no problem with the function names. So stop yer whining or we'll
make you use Damian Conway's Lingua::Romana::Perligata instead of PHP.
Well, ok... there may be a problem, but I am not convinced of it. And if
there were a problem, we need a better way to fix it than has been yet
proposed.
Live in eternal fear of backwards compatibility :)
----------------------------------------------
When issues of function renaming arise, frighten all the little hackers with
stories of how the villagers will rise against us if we break backwards
compatibility with PHP 2.
Refuse to relinquish old C function names :)
-----------------------------------------
At the first sign of any change to the function names, cling tightly to your
'woogie' and begin to cry. They can't make you give up your woogie - why,
you;'d rather shave off your beard and give up your suspenders than live
life without your woogie.
Bite off more than you can chew :)
---------------------------------
Attempt to swallow large issues in a single bite and end up choking on your
wishful thinking. Core developers stand around you and make bets on what
color your face will turn before someone remembers the function name for the
Heimlich manuever (is that apply_heimlich_manuever, heim, heimApp,
windpipe_clear... or was it set_socket_blocking (FALSE)
Expand the scope of the argument :)
----------------------------------
Expand the argument scope until it encompasses almost every aspect of the
language. Wonder why everone else looks at you like you are a large
cockroach.
Hamstring the discussion :)
-------------------------
Ignore the thread til it looks like it is getting somewhere, then unload one
crippling message and retreat from the ensuing carnage.
Seriously, this is a bugger to resolve! I don't think that there is a hope
in hell on getting consensus on this issue.
The only solutions I see are:
---------------------------
Add an extra module that implements sane names. This would be a
compile-time option that is disabled by default. Include methods to
translate scripts between the two naming scheme. Include tools to make
coding easier, including Hartmut's handy function looker-upper widget
(basically, if you use an unknown function name, PHP attempts to recommend a
proper function name for you to use.)
In the off chance that we can get consensus, either:
Start a ground up rework of the language for PHP 5. Audit the source
code and fix the outstanding gremlins. I suspect that this has about as
much chance happening as most of us have of becoming male models.
Implement one of the moderate proposals that many of us have already
outlined.
Fork the codebase - start a variant called H_P_H (Hypertext
Preprocessor::Hypocoristic) with sensible names ; )\
In any case, it is 4 in the morning over here and I still have work to do.
I hope that this makes some sense.
--zak
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
