At 09:21 AM 3/1/2004 -0500, Hans Lellelid wrote:
Hi -
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Well we don't have very much time anymore because I want to roll RC1 ASAP (assuming that we get a couple of bugs fixed which need fixing).
Personally I'm fine with either of these (I don't mind hasMore()) but a decision has to be reached quickly. From discussing with Marcus I don't think he feels very strongly about it but like me doesn't think hasMore() is so bad. People are used to this semantics IMO.
Well, I think that it's confusing. I think that current users are used to the semantics, but right now it's a pretty small group using PHP5. I think that it'll be a lot harder to change something like this after release -- and I do think the current method naming is semantically wrong. Having implemented several Iterators, until now it's been a bit of a second-guess (have to go read the example in zend-engine2.php doc) every time. I think that this would be a lot clearer if it could be renamed.
Clearly I don't know what is involved in renaming this method.
Obviously it will break some existing code ... but it's an easy fix (since generally I assume the only code that would need to change is the implementing class) & better now then never IHMO.
I know you want to roll RC1 asap -- I want that too (!) -- but I think it would be great if this change could be incorporated. Just my .02.
Thanks, Hans
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
