# Naming Arguments - Thread: https://externals.io/message/21565 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/21565 - Started by Sara Golemon on 2006-01-18T08:01:26+00:00 - Messages: 10 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #21565 — Sara Golemon — 2006-01-18T08:01:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21565 That's "Naming" not "Named". From the perspective of providing reflection in general and giving something for editors with code completion to use in specific, would there be an interrest in backfilling the arg_info structs for internal functions (both core and otherwise) with argument naming and type hinting even where it's not technically needed? On the con side, this does add memory usage and processing time for no direct production benefit. Any utility which wanted this degree of introspection *could* parse the XML protos in phpdoc and get the same (or better) information, so it doesn't really gain that much for what it costs. Do please forget about the work required to fill in this information. There are more than enough volunteers to do the grunge work(and frankly it'd be tough for 'em to get it horribly wrong), this is just a question of: "Would there be an interrest in folding this data into the core?" and secondly: "Should new extension writers be encouraged to fill this information in?". -Sara --- ## #21566 — Jared Williams — 2006-01-18T10:55:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21566 · In reply to: #21565 > From the perspective of providing reflection in general and > giving something for editors with code completion to use in > specific, would there be an interrest in backfilling the > arg_info structs for internal functions (both core and > otherwise) with argument naming and type hinting even where > it's not technically needed? > > On the con side, this does add memory usage and processing > time for no direct production benefit. Any utility which > wanted this degree of introspection *could* parse the XML > protos in phpdoc and get the same (or > better) information, so it doesn't really gain that much for > what it costs. Can you produce the arg_info structs from parsing the XML protos? > > Do please forget about the work required to fill in this > information. There are more than enough volunteers to do the > grunge work(and frankly it'd be tough for 'em to get it > horribly wrong), this is just a question of: "Would there be > an interrest in folding this data into the core?" and secondly: > "Should new extension writers be encouraged to fill this > information in?". Perhaps some tool to generate boiler plate docbook from introspection would be enough encouragement? Jared --- ## #21568 — Andi Gutmans — 2006-01-18T22:47:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21568 · In reply to: #21565 At 12:01 AM 1/18/2006, Sara Golemon wrote: >Do please forget about the work required to fill in this >information. There are more than enough volunteers to do the grunge >work(and frankly it'd be tough for 'em to get it horribly wrong), >this is just a question of: "Would there be an interrest in folding >this data into the core?" and secondly: "Should new extension >writers be encouraged to fill this information in?". Andrei is waiting for volunteers to upgrade internal functions to Unicode :) Andi --- ## #21569 — Hartmut Holzgraefe — 2006-01-18T23:12:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21569 · In reply to: #21568 Andi Gutmans wrote: > Andrei is waiting for volunteers to upgrade internal functions to > Unicode :) is there a todo list of functions converted, being worked on, pending? -- Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer . MySQL AB, www.mysql.com --- ## #21570 — Andi Gutmans — 2006-01-18T23:31:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21570 · In reply to: #21569 Not sure if there's a list. I think it's 90% or so not converted. Andrei, you can answer this one better than me. At 03:12 PM 1/18/2006, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > […] > >is there a todo list of functions converted, being worked on, >pending? > >-- >Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer . >MySQL AB, www.mysql.com --- ## #21571 — Hartmut Holzgraefe — 2006-01-19T00:11:38+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21571 · In reply to: #21570 Andi Gutmans wrote: > Not sure if there's a list. I think it's 90% or so not converted. > Andrei, you can answer this one better than me. well, the only one i checked so far was my `levenshtein()` function, and seeing something as esoteric as this already being converted made me think most of the reast was, too -- Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer . MySQL AB, www.mysql.com --- ## #21572 — Steph Fox — 2006-01-19T00:45:03+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21572 · In reply to: #21571 Try /unicode_progress.txt. Dmitry appears to have cleaned IS_BINARY references from everything that was already unicoded prior to the Paris meeting. - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" To: "Andi Gutmans" Cc: "Sara Golemon" ; ; "Andrei Zmievski" Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Naming Arguments > Andi Gutmans wrote: > > […] > > well, the only one i checked so far was my `levenshtein()` function, > and seeing something as esoteric as this already being converted > made me think most of the reast was, too > > -- > Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer . > MySQL AB, www.mysql.com > > -- > > > > > __________ NOD32 1.1371 (20060118) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com --- ## #21573 — Andi Gutmans — 2006-01-19T01:43:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21573 · In reply to: #21572 If that's accurate than from the 4000 or so functions we have, there are about 3980 to go :) At 04:45 PM 1/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >Try /unicode_progress.txt. Dmitry appears to have cleaned IS_BINARY >references from everything that was already unicoded prior to the >Paris meeting. --- ## #21657 — Andrei Zmievski — 2006-01-23T18:45:34+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21657 · In reply to: #21570 There is no "unconverted" function list. There is unicode-progress.txt file where we have been tracking what has been done, but I'm not sure as to its accuracy as of yet. Some of the functions listed there may need to be looked over after Dmitry's patch. -Andrei > Not sure if there's a list. I think it's 90% or so not converted. > Andrei, you can answer this one better than me. > > At 03:12 PM 1/18/2006, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > > […] --- ## #21659 — Sean Coates — 2006-01-23T19:29:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/21565#21659 · In reply to: #21657 Andrei Zmievski wrote: > There is no "unconverted" function list. There is unicode-progress.txt > file where we have been tracking what has been done, but I'm not sure as > to its accuracy as of yet. Some of the functions listed there may need > to be looked over after Dmitry's patch. It would be nice to be able to track this progress directly in the source via some sort of meta-data. Embedding the "unicode status" in function protos would be ideal. Something like: /* {{{ proto mixed foo(mixed bar) Foos the bar */ Could become: /* {{{ proto mixed foo(mixed bar) U Foos the bar */ Meaning that this function has been tested to be functional under the new Unicode rules.. or "Unicode-safe" Opinions? S