Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84521 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53363 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2015 21:12:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Mar 2015 21:12:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:39723] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EA/FC-08808-C3E5FF45 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:12:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 1945 invoked by uid 89); 10 Mar 2015 21:12:26 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 1939, pid: 1942, t: 0.0767s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@86.189.147.37) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 10 Mar 2015 21:12:26 -0000 Message-ID: <54FF5E39.7000507@lsces.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:12:25 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <54F83C4D.1020206@gmail.com> <54F8BF67.6080600@gmail.com> <848D3C19-DE29-4E5F-9B23-D87D3F4A9365@gmail.com> <54FB45D6.3040803@gmail.com> <54FCD063.4040300@gmail.com> <54FEB910.5000608@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Consistent function names From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 10/03/15 20:44, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> > YES there is room to create a more consistent procedural interface, but >> > my original question still applies "consistent with what rules?" > > It's possible choice. > I agree that names without "_" looks more consistent. > Personally, I don't care much about having "_" or not for procedural API. My > only concern is naming consistency. > > Names without "_" changes basic coding rule. > Problem is how to make a choice and how to define exceptions. e.g. > nl_langinfo() > > I wonder how many of us prefer names without "_". The one thing that your RFC demonstrates perfectly is just how much has to change to match that rule. Change the rule and the number of names that need alternatives is considerably less. I know a case was made at the time for adding underscores to the guidelines but it's quite clear that this was the mistake? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk