Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26372
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.162.207 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
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=l/Pxscjt9uQC0T/2ocQfzD/YZsMTwwFB7B6BE2jQ1Oo0OmpFgZG6kquLbS5WEuQgljCUUmA/pcW7KgF4sWux9km6qzZgNhEf5pEz9pbxCWRUyvRS26bFoAdg0uG8dUSa0a0fP7aGG6t2H1jscvr9K7G3JGDGE5ZgAfo9RrsLh4o=
In-Reply-To: <454E7433.3030303@lsces.co.uk>
References: <005e01c6ff82$e6092c30$ec01010a@intranet.db> <2FAA3BA3-283C-445D-9648-70C207FF2251@prohost.org> <454CBD65.5040205@cschneid.com> <B990B08B-20E3-41FD-BA54-A8F78443B572@prohost.org> <454D66C4.2090708@cschneid.com> <1465A1B3-C0AE-48E0-9E3A-66BDC57D89F3@prohost.org> <454E23DA.8000705@cschneid.com> <63EDBC2B-D89A-41EE-B4AD-CDDB28A50AB4@prohost.org> <454E7433.3030303@lsces.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-ID: <7B3EDDC6-69C8-4E2E-892A-F776AA9C04F6@prohost.org>
Cc: Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:50:26 -0500
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Sender: Ilia Alshanetsky <iliaal@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Datetime class problem
From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky)


On 5-Nov-06, at 6:30 PM, Lester Caine wrote:

> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I never used the PEAR Date - it was crap - but all my applications  
> failed with your new one BECAUSE Date was the obvious name for that  
> package. I STILL can not see why we can't just select these things  
> as I do in C++ and include your new function if I want or keep with  
> my own established version - what ever the name. This new stuff  
> does not HAVE to be hard coded into the core - simply loadable like  
> any other good extensible language? If we don't want it we don't  
> load it! I don't need any database stuff other than Firebird -  
> therefore I want a DATE and TIME package that follows Firebird  
> rules end of story.

You seem to be under the assumption that people care about what it is  
that you want, reality is that most people could care less. That said  
this is an open source project, so rather then pointless whining on  
the list you can always tweak the source code to your needs, such is  
the beauty of the open source software.

Ilia Alshanetsky