Hi!
I don't understand why the choice between IntlCollator and Collator affects compatibility between 5.x and 6.x. Can you explain this further?
Because if you want Collator in 6, and you want same code to run both 5.x and 6.x, then it's Collator in 5.x. If A==B, then B==A.
I don't think IntlCollator is either long, or weird. Actually I feel
Well, of course it would be strange for you to say "I think it's weird but I still advocate it's usage". I however think that here usability is more important than uniformity for the sake of uniformity. There would be no problem for people to know which class name to use for collator.
prefixing the extension name aids code clarity (as it tells me which extension the class belongs to, and I can search on "Intl" to find all places I'm using anything from the extension).
Now, why would it be important to you which directory contains the source file that produced your function? So important that you would want to sacrifice usability for it? I think most users couldn't care less once it works for them.
* Following PHP naming guidelines
PHP naming guidelines do not say it must always be extension name. It has it has to be by functional group.
* Avoid clashes with existing classes (someone having written a class called Collator is more likely than someone having written one called IntlCollator)
That's because IntlCollator is so awkward a name nobody would use it in the code unless forced to. Why would I want to force all PHP users to use awkward names? To show off how "consistent" we are? To hell with the consistency if the consistency means being consistently hard to use.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Unicode & I18N Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
