Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84290
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGa2bXYa5Lz0JqySVSQ+hGfCW-WxxKWvqFtWaZo=OVf+LLsV8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6=KY2tzRE8yw6kEdh4SrVJ3uG81XX5yuu0E_63G1HN6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F4E29D.7080501@garfieldtech.com> <CAGa2bXbph51CUHr_G87FL65hSDfLSDHo14Bnke-vaLu7SmH=ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F4E93C.80206@gmail.com> <54F4EBEC.2090702@garfieldtech.com>
 <CAGa2bXaQ0SgLWdv7WCoo_qyOQH=t2Vi_bwpk7qXZDEUk+7S7ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F4F3FC.6060501@fischer.name> <CAGa2bXb-d7A3So8e76=p5qqxrZgLK2B_4RKA1OKg0nHZiw9z6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F4FDFB.8010701@lsces.co.uk> <CAGa2bXZUvJJVDVj-48qpPuMas12fnDigKGcE-r=TK20Sahyi7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F5895D.3090002@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXbuNEcvoeeBhkUUEkiHZJFvJTVX=h_JPTLHpMTtgbCokw@mail.gmail.com>
 <554F0C3F-770F-4694-A5AB-FDC54FCCBF00@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXbDdS=N=JmPwBa1iorx1aJPuo00EfU7bw31cknAxAfDyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEu+QUX1j2P+OfU+Sf_wUOQzYrLody0zPF6V9rVWvYjGFfbrSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZYG37qdkjTkoDq12GtYTwS-=gX-=msPx3RWeSenxSdqw@mail.gmail.com> <54F72360.6000702@lerdorf.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHXmDMAwuxHtBU1DV_g_FwPKc9TfDcyJrX=+WEMXZevmbmQftQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133dea8e713260510782dad
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Consistent function names
From: rican7@gmail.com (Trevor Suarez)

--001a1133dea8e713260510782dad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

... well that's a constructive way of going about it. I don't think Yasuo
did anything harmful or rude in making his proposal. Regardless of how
realistic the idea may be, I don't think its ever appropriate or
constructive to tell someone to simply "stop" because something "is just
ridiculous".

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:

> On 03/03/2015 07:34 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Michael Schuett <
> michaeljs1990@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Your evaluation is pretty anecdotal. I agree with some points but you
> need
> >> some solid evidence if you are going to rate these languages. Also do
> you
> >> have a list of all the functions you would like to rename or is this a
> >> sweeping lets just change everything so it matches and deprecate all the
> >> old stuff. Your matrix is a very weak push to do so. If you want to make
> >> these changes it would be better to choose a select set such as the
> array
> >> functions and try and push that through or see what that change might
> look
> >> like and if it's really beneficial to userland.
> >
> >
> > I agree that my evaluation is subjective. For example, I rate PHP has "1"
> > security only
> > because PHP is very weak against script/file inclusions because it's
> fatal
> > and other
> > languages apps do not have script/file inclusions as PHP apps do. Others
> > might
> > rate "2" or even "3" because it is too easy to fix it even if incident is
> > fatal.
> > (Security should be evaluated by "how difficult to make mistakes", not
> "how
> > easy to
> > fix mistakes" generally. IMHO)
> >
> > I made list of rename candidates
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_function_names#
> list_of_functions_to_be_renamed
> > If you have suggestions, I appreciate!
>
> Yasuo, please stop. This isn't going to happen. Changing strlen() to
> str_len() is just ridiculous.
>
> -Rasmus
>
>
>

--001a1133dea8e713260510782dad--