> > Following a standard seems logical, following the PEAR coding standard
> > sounds good to me. It's in the manual, makes sense, and is known to many.
>
> It is actually not in the manual anymore. PEAR has its own manual
> now. The PEAR stuff in the main manual is not generated for output.
> I
> > I think this need to be discussed. What coding standard would
> > like the phpdoc authors follow, if any. I think we should follow
> > one. Either we choose the PEAR coding standard, which needs to
> > be extended somewhat for our needs (eg. variable names,
> > comment weiting, output sample f
> > Why can't we use the PEAR standard for PHP code and the PECL coding
> > standard (which seem to be the same as the for php) for C related code.
> > It looks confusing and inconsistent when PHP comes along with PEAR and
> > it's conding standard and the Manual with no or another one. I do not
>
> > > The question is not only how to write functions, but how
> > > to write code, including functions, comments, variable
> > > names, constants, sample output, expressions, etc.
> >
> > We cannot switch between PEAR, PECL, or another standard. Please
> > remove the link to PEAR.
>
> Why can't
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:33:36 +0100
"Egon Schmid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> I doesn´ t mean only the space, look at the braces.
>
> > The question is not only how to write functions, but how
> > to write code, including functions, comments,
We must not follow the PEAR standard. Please notice the faqt, that
the manual was written before the PEAR coding standards have been
written.
-Egon
From: "Friedhelm Betz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Friday, December 14, 2001, 10:41:50 AM, you wrote:
>> > > Therefore I thought this way of writing the pr
From: "Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I should know the history. The PEAR standard was written some
years
> > after the PHP manual. So I don´t see any improvement if writers
> > should write
> >
> > function_name(args)
> > {
> > // do something
> > }
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > function
From: "Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Therefore I thought this way of writing the protos is ok.
> > > > One says care for the pear standards, others say do not.
> > > > So how should this be done in the future?
> > >
> > > There must be some standard, we should not let alone all
> > >
From: "Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I think we should not put a space after the function name
> > > and before the ( char. See the PEAR standards about this
> > > thing. That space is used with control structures and
> > > "functions" called without parenthesis (echo, print,
include...
> We must not follow the PEAR standard. Please notice the faqt, that
> the manual was written before the PEAR coding standards have been
> written.
OK, I think we can get this, as you have written it many times.
Then what about developing our own standard for writing code in
phpdoc. Are you again
Hi
Friday, December 14, 2001, 10:41:50 AM, you wrote:
>> > > Therefore I thought this way of writing the protos is ok.
>> > > One says care for the pear standards, others say do not.
>> > > So how should this be done in the future?
>> >
>> > There must be some standard, we should not let alone
> I should know the history. The PEAR standard was written some years
> after the PHP manual. So I don´t see any improvement if writers
> should write
>
> function_name(args)
> {
> // do something
> }
>
> instead of
>
> function_name (args) {
>// do something
> }
Now writers use both. Isn
> > > Therefore I thought this way of writing the protos is ok.
> > > One says care for the pear standards, others say do not.
> > > So how should this be done in the future?
> >
> > There must be some standard, we should not let alone all
> > writers IMHO, to write things in their own preference.
> > I think we should not put a space after the function name
> > and before the ( char. See the PEAR standards about this
> > thing. That space is used with control structures and
> > "functions" called without parenthesis (echo, print, include...).
> > This is not a major issue.
>
> There was
14 matches
Mail list logo
