Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21008 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93387 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Dec 2005 14:46:46 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93371 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2005 14:46:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Dec 2005 14:46:46 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.149.123.177 mail.aaaa.ws Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([83.149.123.177:35227] helo=mail.aaaa.ws) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 97/EB-14828-55E50934 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:46:45 -0500 Received: from cpc2-sout5-5-0-cust53.sot3.cable.ntl.com ([81.110.110.53] helo=[192.168.1.103]) by mail.aaaa.ws with esmtpa (Exim 4.50) id 1EiCBJ-0001sI-Bi; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:46:37 +0100 To: Michael Cordover Cc: Sara Golemon , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <43905052.1070208@mjec.net> References: <3F.25.11378.CEA42834@pb1.pair.com> <018d01c5eeec$23949600$5c8be5a9@ohr.berkeley.edu> <497935ba0511211511l5867410dk577deb60b998a069@mail.gmail.com> <497935ba0511211512k4c8e1cb4r89cf1ffcd4ab7829@mail.gmail.com> <438254E6.2050903@prohost.org> <497935ba0511211609n675a3c3yf03cb5e5e97bb5bf@mail.gmail.com> <4382BDA2.4050806@php.net> <497935ba0511220024l492112f7nfe2c05d27d65e1a5@mail.gmail.com> <497935ba0511220024j4a189b94r667945241f1811f8@mail.gmail.com> <497935ba0511220159y14dc36cra39e28d7d617a03b@mail.gmail.com> <13067.64.241.37.140.1132675931.squirrel@www.quo.org> <21.D1.11378.F1096834@pb1.pair.com> <00b501c5f17d$c1259980$7d051fac@stumpy> <43905052.1070208@mjec.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:46:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1133534798.10437.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Syntax in PHP 6 From: matthew@teh.ath.cx ("Matthew C. Kavanagh") On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 00:46 +1100, Michael Cordover wrote: > It seems to me, therefore, that we should get rid of the underscores. > Yes, this means changing a lot more functions around, but adding > underscores will just make function names MORE confusing where there's > ambiguity - and that's what we want to remove. Is this some manner of dry humour along the lines of "A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling"? I'd rather have the ambiguity..