On 07.11.2017 at 02:53, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> OOP would be nice for avoiding having to type image* constantly.
>
> But as for the hard-to-read naming, OOP isn't necessaary, IMO. The
> current GD API's naming without underscores cries out for camelCase. And
> that's possible for methods… but it's
Hi,
Sara Golemon wrote:
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
In my opinion, just renaming the functions doesn't make much sense.
Instead we might consider to introduce OO wrappers, which wouldn't
unnecessarily polute the global namespace, and also could lead to more
conci
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> In my opinion, just renaming the functions doesn't make much sense.
> Instead we might consider to introduce OO wrappers, which wouldn't
> unnecessarily polute the global namespace, and also could lead to more
> concise userland code. K
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Treichel wrote:
For a better readability of the gd functions I would like to rename them
so that they contain underscores to separate the words.
From my perspective, GD's function names are a documentation problem.
They're perfectly readable if typed in camelCase, as I do
On 04.11.2017 at 17:40, Andreas Treichel wrote:
> For a better readability of the gd functions I would like to rename them
> so that they contain underscores to separate the words. The only
> exception is image2wbmp which is renamed to image_to_wbmp. The order of
> the parameters of all functions
