Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84537
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <550035F0.10703@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:32:48 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAGa2bXYa5Lz0JqySVSQ+hGfCW-WxxKWvqFtWaZo=OVf+LLsV8A@mail.gmail.com> <CEF2AD42-3CE1-489F-8192-D1DC3D8D8698@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXZDnuE3mKQYD+Sq2=kH=YDXuRQA3o+9wg4v81ZS+h3rLw@mail.gmail.com> <54F83C4D.1020206@gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6ni038E+b0ziAC1b0w=t3gsmBwMjAui4e0sXd8EgbyXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0xaBF7u2h9A5UnVB+-z6SwDtLOVY_qL7B9UGj7w_Lecwct6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAGa2bXa5zER03VrMrtD9aUQ38LK9C_UWU-jbGjzEZUoxbUsSQQ@mail.gmail.com> <54F8BF67.6080600@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXbvZbMb5C0RnaDAVTAMK_+9x-BzidXcm9MgoaGmtWK+Zg@mail.gmail.com> <848D3C19-DE29-4E5F-9B23-D87D3F4A9365@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXZgx4JCv3e5a94SXwYOnLMXjYcXdMizdQ9bpqZz7oYGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <54FB45D6.3040803@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXYU_DRuo3T8WRuq=3Xih79BZ7vHqYOnry2AvxgVx8g0WA@mail.gmail.com> <54FCD063.4040300@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXYt_zHfLgKEXP+uzTH0KbeAqRmxxEAcCtsMYgyW4ptfSA@mail.gmail.com> <54FEB910.5000608@lsces.co.uk> <CAGa2bXbLVoBM+d0VVqwm8-tKaFWRE1WpMnLMaFWVHMjH4hRvDA@mail.gmail.com> <54FF5E39.7000507@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54FF5E39.7000507@lsces.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Consistent function names
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

Lester Caine wrote on 10/03/2015 21:12:
> 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?

PHP function names are case insensitive, and conventionally written in 
lower-case (a convention that nothing decided on this list will change), 
so underscores are important for readability.

To take an example Yasuo has mentioned a couple of times, pg_lo_open() 
without any underscores at all would be pgloopen(), which is very hard 
to read: it could be pGloopen(), pgLoopEn(), pGlooPen(), pgLoOpen(), etc.

For whatever reason, PHP's users decided to go with camelCase 
identifiers for methods, rather than underscores. I don't think that was 
a decision that originated in the core distribution (which for a long 
time had very few object APIs), and I don't think it's one that can be 
changed by the core distribution (or, at this stage, anyone).

If PHP had had namespaces from day 1, and camel-case conventions, it 
would have been pg\loOpen(), but we can't change history.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]