On 10/09/01, "Joey Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would love if every C developer in the world would stop using this. I
> doubt that's going to happen anytime soon...but at least I can voice my
> opinion here, what people at least hear me out, if they don't exactly
> *hear* me. :)
I hear you, but sadly I don't think this will ever be changed :-(
> It's a bad idea. Always. No matter what language you are using. No
> matter what kind of library you are talking about. Making things this
> complex into such an easy thing to overlook is a good way to hurt and
> frustrate your users, and your fellow coders. Is gettext() *REALLY* that
> hard to type? I find that really, really hard to believe.
It's not just the typing factor, it's the readability factor.
Yes, gettext tells you what it does but it gets in the way.
Do you use syntax highlighting in your code editor of choice?
I do, and I find that I take in a lot of the syntactic information almost
on a sublimininal level; my brain doesn't have to work as hard to understand
the grammar so I can spend more time understanding what the code does.
If I turn off the highlighting, or if it is not available (like running
vi over telnet) it is that much harder to work with the code.
To a certain extent shortening gettext() to _() is the same; think about
it for a moment (you don't have to like it! ;-) If I gave you a piece
of paper that had the word gettext tiled in the background with the code
printed over the top you'd find it hard work to read the code.
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but I'm just highlighting why
I prefer _() in this case. The sheer quantity of gettext calls does
make it unwieldy to use the full function name.
--Wez.
--
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]
