Thank you for these comments!

Perhaps it would make sense to, at some point, create a followup proposal
to namespace the entire gd extension - so that all gd functions would be in
the namespace? I'd leave it to others to determine whether this would be
desirable, or whether it wouldn't be worth making developers update
existing code.

On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 6:08 AM Ayesh Karunaratne <ayesh@php.watch> wrote:

> >
> > Den søn. 6. jun. 2021 kl. 00.09 skrev Ayesh Karunaratne <ayesh@php.watch
> >:
> > >
> > > Hi Ben,
> > > Thank you for opening this PR and the discussion. With the wide
> > > availability of AVIF/AV1 support in browsers, I think this will fit
> > > nicely.
> > >
> > > We have the Namespaces in Bundled Extensions RFC
> > > (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions) passed, so
> > > perhaps, the new functions are probably better in the `Gd` namespace?
> > > This would mean the new functions would be `\Gd\imagecreatefromavif`
> > > and `\Gd\imageavif`. They are inconsistent with the existing functions
> > > of course, but I thought to mention it because it's a recent proposal
> > > and I don't think we added new functions after that RFC. Some examples
> > > are recently renamed PHP classes in IMAP, Pgsql, LDAP, and FTP
> > > extensions to follow this new proposal.
> >
> > I don't think it makes much sense to do that for a single function,
> > because it makes the API cluttered, as why would I call
> > `\Gd\imagecreatefromavif` when everything else is in the global
> > namespace? That is a poor design, while I understand the intentions
> > behind it is good.
> >
> > I think this needs to be well thoughtout in a topic on its own rather
> > than off topicing it here, so I will leave it at that.
> >
> >
> > Overall, +1 for adding this
> > --
> > regards,
> >
> > Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> > ka...@php.net
>
> I also think going with `imagecreatefromavif`/`imageavif` is good for
> consistency. I brought that RFC up because it was recent and this is
> the first new function we are adding.
>
> Thank you.
>

Reply via email to