ot;PHP
Development" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re:
[PHP-DEV]ctype function (re?)naming
We should probably just make a list of all the effected functions and see
which ones we start fixing
Phil wrote:
Ron - whose postings I normally agree with :-) - wrote:
As do I :)
[snip]
I know that Zak has been doing some experiments along these lines, but has
also been busy on other projects. Any news to report Zak?
I now have less hair that I did before starting. ;) Finding sensible
We're probably best off staying with the status quo and trying to keep a
close look at any new modules which make it into the tree and modules which
have been added since 4.0.4 (or maybe a small time before).
It doesn't make much sense to go back and break old names and it doesn't
make lots of
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
Ron - whose postings I normally agree with :-) - wrote:
Ignoring case, the extension count, and the possible naming styles, is
as follows:
word_word_word: 65
wordwordword: 24
word_wordword: 21
Some extensions use more than one style, but the one most often
used is word_word_word. Many functions
