We should probably just make a list of all the effected functions and see
which ones we start fixing and which not.
And of course it has to be a very gradual death of the old functions
similar to the way described on the QA list a while ago about having a
warning after a few versions and only then nuking the aliases.
By the way, we already have some ugly aliases today which I'd love to nuke :)
But guys, there's one thing you need to remember and I've seen it in the
past. The amount of people you think will get bitten by something this
small is usually 10 times more than you really think :'(
Andi
At 09:24 PM 3/1/2001 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote:
>Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > It doesn't make much sense to go back and break old names and it doesn't
> > make lots of sense to create a zillion of aliases. I guess if there are
> some
> > names which in particular need fixing because they are terrible (there
> > might be some of these) then we should fix them on a per-function basis.
>
>"zillion" is a bit hard to pin down, isn't it? :-)
>
>I took a swipe at figuring out the scope of the issue, and we have a
>small mix of variants in a mostly consistent set of names. I'd say less
>than a zillion. A bunch or so, maybe? ;-)
>
>If done as a "think about this when updating and editing old code" problem,
>the task of aliasing becomes much smaller, and much more achievable. It
>also becomes less wasteful, as functions which aren't being actively
>used (and thus, maintained) can atrophy gracefully, without having all
>sorts of aliases created for a mostly unused function. (Example: Oracle
>functions are slowly falling away, being replaced by OCI, swf functions
>are doing a similar thing.)
>
> > I am for uniform names but not if it's at the price of adding a zillion of
> > aliases or at a price of making 50% of people's old scripts not work. I am
> > also very much against compile-time options because I'd expect a script
> > written in PHP and posted on some sites code exchange to work for
> everybody.
>
>I'd definitely agree with both points, but am wondering if there's a
>"reasonable"
>limit on supporting old scripts. (I'd call reasonable 6 years worth of
>code, or three major codebase rewrites).
>
>(Thanks for the humor Zak, it helps... I'm gonna go cry, hold onto
>my woogie, and see if I can remember heim_unblock())
>:-)
>
>-Bop
>
>--2D426F70|759328624|00101101010000100110111101110000
>Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 520-326-6109, http://www.opus1.com/ron/
>Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 520-546-8993, http://www.pnsinc.com/
>The opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily those of myself,
>my employers, or any of the other little voices in my head.
--
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]
