Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118032
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMs36HcGzvwwTTU+nUO+U_M6o4qpOAHES7RbHEJWm6iot+-9=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC5V6gj04Qi7C-4UCXeF003u_jKUT9cuqTD8xzPQ06CDMJhURw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANS-=pdDZJ+8yndFmebPZu5S3VXjFr-OW93ndpbkk_+JD9=zxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABTDVhBY3L87PNyT9OZ72PN90qQ6C1Ngz8YRJYuTsqgpkrnNug@mail.gmail.com> <376a90af-8709-012c-76ee-fa351d1b017c@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <376a90af-8709-012c-76ee-fa351d1b017c@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:22:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5V6gghhFJDxKSgXdWYEc5P3siTVxTkO=JdH10qMisPBDiwZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: Go Kudo <zeriyoshi@gmail.com>, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension Improvement
From: guilliam.xavier@gmail.com (Guilliam Xavier)

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 5:25 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wro=
te:
>
> On 20.06.2022 at 16:44, Go Kudo wrote:
>
> > 2022=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8820=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=88) 23:37 Lynn <kjarli@gmail.=
com>:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:15 PM Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail=
.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/random_extension_improvement
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, but I am not sure about your argument in "Classnames are not
> >>> canonicalized": does "PHP applies strict PascalCase to class names"
> >>> (which remains to be proved) really imply to rename *acronyms* (e.g.
> >>> "CombinedLCG" to "CombinedLcg")? especially given existing classes
> >>> like "SimpleXMLElement" (not "SimpleXmlElement"), and that the
> >>> accepted "Class Naming" RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/class-naming)
> >>> voted for "PascalCase except Acronyms" (not "Always PascalCase") --
> >>> excerpts:
> >>
> >> Not specifically directed at this discussion, but perhaps this needs a
> >> revision. HTTPStatus is much harder to read for me than HttpStatus and=
 it's
> >> unclear where the boundary of an acronym starts or stops. If anyone ev=
er
> >> decides to make an RFC for this, you have my vote. These Acronyms are
> >> treated as words and thus should follow the same naming convention. If=
 they
> >> shouldn't be treated as words, write their full name:
> >> HypertextTransferProtocolStatus.
> >
> > I support "PascalCase except Acronyms" for readability, but would like =
to
> > see this
> > clarified as I get very lost when implementing new features.
> > I think it is necessary because I expect various OO APIs will be added =
in
> > the future,
> > like cURL.
>
> In my opinion, <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/class-naming> was a bit
> unfortunate.  It may have been better to decide on a case by case basis.
>
> For instance, we have introduced several Curl* classes in PHP 8.0[1],
> and these adhere to the appropriate example in the RFC, although CURL is
> clearly an acronym[2], and the canonical spelling is even cURL.  Maybe
> even worse, the previously introduced CURLFile[3] uses different
> capitalization, and CURLStringFile[4] which was introduced in PHP 8.1 is
> aligned to that spelling.
>
> So, obviously, the RFC didn't have a good impact on some of the namings
> so far.

That seems unfortunate indeed :/ and there are others, e.g.
"XMLReader" but "XmlParser"... Moreover, I see that
https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/CODING_STANDARDS.md#user-functio=
nsmethods-naming-conventions
item 7 only says "should", not "must".

I too find "HttpStatus" [or "HTTP_status", for that matter] more
readable than "HTTPStatus" (where I first see "HTTPS" before noticing
that the S actually starts a second word), and "PcgOneseq128XslRr64"
than "PCGOneseq128XSLRR64" (especially if not already familiar with
"PCG" and "XSL-RR")...

So, it may indeed be OK (and preferred?) to "canonicalize" the
proposed class names (just, "PHP applies strict PascalCase to class
names" wasn't a good argument for it).

PS @Go Kudo: please don't be offended, but in general, maybe you
should wait "a bit more" [or even ask] for other opinions, rather than
changing the RFC "too fast" after only one (especially when I said "I
am not sure" and asked a question)

Regards,

--=20
Guilliam Xavier