On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter Cowburn <sala...@php.net> wrote: > On 8 January 2013 16:34, Paul Dragoonis <dragoo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was under the impression those were static methods, then we should >> DEFINITELY get rid of this crappy class prefix on the left. Wether it's >> nice or not from a UI standpoint, it's fundamentally broken and misleading >> and should be removed from there, not even considering design things. >> >> I'm going to make this patch, if someone can come up with a good reason to >> mislead people, speak up and we can revert the commit. > > I don't have a *good* reason, more a vague niggling doubt. I think > the assumption that "everyone" (not to quote anybody) trips over :: > and assumes they are all static methods is not going to carry much > weight. Either way, who's to say that getting rid of the class name > entirely won't raise another issue: people will assume they're > functions rather than class methods! > > I have to say, occasionally people read the function prototypes and > try to use ClassName::method() mistakenly but I have never seen or > heard of anyone confused about the navigation link titles (until > today). > > Removing the class name disassociates the method from what it belongs > to. That hurts my brain. Please, don't get rid of the classes. > > P.S. Didn't we fix this with some CSS magic at some point, rather than > injecting HTML? Maybe I imagined that or it's buried someone in my > local checkout. > > P.P.S. I'm too late. Darn.
Perhaps simply leaving the `::` would help distinguish them as class methods vs normal functions without the bloat of the full-on class name? -- PHP Webmaster List Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
