Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26355 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32670 invoked by uid 1010); 5 Nov 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32655 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=iliaal@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=good Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=iliaal@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.162.204 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: good X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: iliaal@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.162.204 nz-out-0102.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [64.233.162.204] ([64.233.162.204:58310] helo=nz-out-0102.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2E/67-10980-F662E454 for ; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:59:13 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id o1so674933nzf for ; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:59:09 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer:sender; b=FD5e9Kvlccx2fGcDal9sZC7+DxOUM4m6b/PB/QQdh6rJ+z+AHOIu997d0dxApRECrGnDlXBqyodM9Nkbez6CiPeppHJplEGRNIXCzlhsOa3IuKjSmXsCsz4bZ57IlLUx6/e4wvEp6fjv56aZGQjdhPDgdzZg7PTDXAbZs7+mHw4= Received: by 10.65.147.1 with SMTP id z1mr4100294qbn.1162749549306; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.6? ( [74.108.69.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e19sm5406522qbe.2006.11.05.09.59.08; Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:59:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <454E23DA.8000705@cschneid.com> References: <005e01c6ff82$e6092c30$ec01010a@intranet.db> <2FAA3BA3-283C-445D-9648-70C207FF2251@prohost.org> <454CBD65.5040205@cschneid.com> <454D66C4.2090708@cschneid.com> <1465A1B3-C0AE-48E0-9E3A-66BDC57D89F3@prohost.org> <454E23DA.8000705@cschneid.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-ID: <63EDBC2B-D89A-41EE-B4AD-CDDB28A50AB4@prohost.org> Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:59:00 -0500 To: Christian Schneider X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: Ilia Alshanetsky Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Datetime class problem From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) On 5-Nov-06, at 12:48 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> When we were picking a name the discussion was public on this very >> list and based on our analysis of what names people were using in >> their application and what would be an ideal name DateTime was >> picked. > > I'm not questioning this decision. I'm talking about the policy for > further classes. Maybe I should change the topic to be clearer... We've already established a sufficiently clear policy on this matter. When someone adds a feature to a language which is anticipated to cause BC breaks its merits are discussed on the list where all sides get a chance to expression their opinion. Once that's done developers do a quick vote and based on this vote decision is made. This is a fairly clear, simple and transparent process. >>> A little thought experiment: Let's assume the number of >>> application classes (and the usage of those classes) is on >>> average higher than those of the core classes. Would that change >>> the situation? >> The number of current users does not matter, simply because are >> you not comparing equivalent things here. You are comparing >> existing code to something that just came out. > > Forget about all the code out there: Let's say the average > application uses its own classes 10 times and PHP core classes only > 5 times, which one should have the right to the short and more > convenient name? The language always has the best pick of namespaces, this is not just PHP, but ANY language. The fact we've made a compromise and allows PEAR to retain the date class IMO has been a horrible mistake, one hopefully not to be repeated in the future. > And I'm not saying that this is the case, it's just a thought. > >>> Come on, that can't be the solution. Think about hosting >>> companies for example. >> They as a rule use old versions, in fact I bet you'd be hard >> pressed to find a big or even a medium size hosting company >> offering PHP 5.2 just now. So you have plenty of time to fix your >> code. > > I could be mean and ask why that is. But that's not the discussion > here. We're talking about the naming policy of classes in the long > run. The classes/functions/constants that will be added in the future will be based largely on the names the developers of said language components decide upon. In the event their names present issues, such as BC breaks there would be a review done to determine the merits of keeping or changing the name. It is really quite simple. Ilia Alshanetsky