On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:51:37 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Boerger) wrote:
> Hello Pierre, > > well Jan has a has a very good point here. Just as it was unlikely Jan? > that a class called PDO had been implemented a hundred times, it > didn't cause any namespace clashes. However it is fairly likely that > some frameworks bring Zip support and have a class named Zip. If not > then there probably is no mainstream use for a Zip class and > inclusion to core makes little sense. No mainstream use? Which other examples do you need? There is hundred of usages of the zip archives. > So for me this falls clearly > under the terms of our naming scheme (see [7] below) and shows we > should extend this rule a bit to prevent obvious and very short > names. Again, I have nothing against short names. We have to inform our users and prepare them. > Obvious here imo means terms that are likely to be used in a > frameworks/applications. To me Zip definitively is. Apart from > renaming i have nothing against moving it to core. > > Just a short note, you accused Derick of sneaking in stuff that was > more or less decided, well obviously he could have done it early - > hadn't he done much other work and haven't he been on vacation > either. So thinking he did is fairly understandable, though i > personally doubt that. But be it that. Why now do the same bad trick > again, and that without even having dicussed the technical part of > inclusion beforehand (like we did for date)? I still accuse him to sneak things in. He did it twice for the same thing. Don't compare apples and oranges. This thread is exactly what has missed for Date. Cheers, --Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
