Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73446 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32640 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2014 21:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Mar 2014 21:50:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bill@devtemple.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bill@devtemple.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain devtemple.com from 50.116.27.81 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bill@devtemple.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 50.116.27.81 li478-81.members.linode.com Received: from [50.116.27.81] ([50.116.27.81:51789] helo=mail.devtemple.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AF/A0-24797-49B43335 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:50:12 -0500 Received: from BillHP (pool-108-47-107-209.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [108.47.107.209]) by mail.devtemple.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0AFE418E; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:50:08 -0400 (EDT) To: "'Andrey Andreev'" Cc: References: <010e01cf4788$05f3c5a0$11db50e0$@devtemple.com> <01c801cf47c0$59acbf20$0d063d60$@devtemple.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:50:07 -0700 Message-ID: <01bb01cf493d$5b78a660$1269f320$@devtemple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIdnyEwmpNQ9DHEQ0tK0vXPLszKbwKiw3ckAhR5pQoCA75UWgGmmNGhAfVdUw2aBHwz0A== Content-Language: en-us Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] session_start(), read_only, lazy_write; Take 2 From: bill@devtemple.com ("Bill Salak") > In order to avoid further arguments about whether a separate function = for read-and-close is better or not,=20 > I've added an alternative proposal - to rename the option to = 'read_close' or 'read_and_close'. > After all, the most important thing is that it's not 'read_only'. Hi Andrey, I don't expect to change your mind on the option read_only needing to be = changed and frankly I'm not=20 really all that concerned about what it's going to be called, but since = it's been mentioned several times that=20 read only has a commonly understood meaning I supply this for voter = consideration: ---- # vim -R ~somefile~ :help 'readonly' # man vim -R Read-only mode. The 'readonly' option will be set. You can still = edit the buffer, but will be prevented=20 from accidently overwriting a file. --- This is only 1 example that's analogous to opening a session as read = only, I'm sure there's many more=20 lurking in my subconscious that causes me to think it's an intuitive = name for what it does.=20 If I didn't know already, when presented with the option for = "read_and_close" I would probably have a=20 minor wtf moment but it *would* make me read the docs to understand what = exactly it means to me if I=20 use it, since it's an unconventional option name.