Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84390 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32139 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2015 23:19:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2015 23:19:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.171 mail-ob0-f171.google.com Received: from [209.85.214.171] ([209.85.214.171:42413] helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 56/A1-15314-EF53AF45 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:19:26 -0500 Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so23754134obc.9 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:19:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=V0u3wNa8woptxZjUrZisEuIBBKsUf+u7Jr/1exlr8sI=; b=vF79NHMLhH/ZORfe/MF3GGiB8AyZTa5fFvHh18ovf6GIws14pCIKFaFUKPOnwDx7JF wD89WYh3aJ0zq1R8K+6kyM6WrjcikxGXou/fUrWdG1mhSEP2fSNrH+JyKwr5Prjzhf9G 0WTUb8GoXSVbbbLVeBOQGdr1M/pnC52o1T2Q56nw6YvzgXuG9dJBEKS0liSmoeLz3u5s SvYpsRXu/LunwZeEui98hllzBPhaoaUTs3cKakujiuo95ab+VgIurPKVi4yKypPKmZuS d/Ymb5RsIP8dh1vahOSa5m87hUwv8B9Jn+w/DYJJJ6WOWeylgoBmyfud02/LQqOtxNPI QrDw== X-Received: by 10.60.62.42 with SMTP id v10mr12855436oer.45.1425683963439; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:19:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.58.2 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:18:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F84208.4020709@lsces.co.uk> References: <726CA870-917C-4270-A129-AFE106E0A380@gmail.com> <54F84208.4020709@lsces.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:18:42 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IPyrRtLLNywpmP2U7RHuOEvU2ZE Message-ID: To: Lester Caine Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c5ca833f28f0510a6ea67 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Consistent Function Names From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) --089e013c5ca833f28f0510a6ea67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Lester, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 05/03/15 09:40, Rowan Collins wrote: > >> > > >> >Good point! > >> >I'll update documents so that main function is prefered name/function > >> >to be > >> >used. > > This would be fine if all the users read the manual, and only the > manual. What about the thousands of books, tutorials, blog posts, Stack > Overflow q&as, etc, all mentioning the names and behaviour that have been > around for 15 to 20 years? Not to mention the thousands of lines of > existing code which people will not only need to read and understand, but > also contribute to without accidentally breaking compatibility with old > versions of PHP. > > This is perhaps the key ... > > Yasuo has at least now come on board over the IEEE standards but has > also spotted that because of allowing a little to much freedom in the > past some of the current guide lines do not marry with the well > established standards :( > I've updated the RFC to have IEEE names as well as other established library function names as valid names. We wouldn't have much problem having aliases for it. I think it would be useful. The bit I'm still unsure of here is not so much messing with some of the > fine detail of the procedural based functions, but the coding standard > that ACTUALLY applies at the object level. Using one naming standard for > ths area and a different one for an object version of the same set of > functions is equally confusing? I agree. I wouldn't rush into. If we change, we should change them right. We have the implementation already. http://php.net/arrayobject I looked into the implementation. I'm surprised that it's overly complicated. It uses "array(hash)" and "object" for array storage for some reasons. This makes it difficult to reuse procedural implementation. We may do something for this issue. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net --089e013c5ca833f28f0510a6ea67--