On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > > > > > > You can't actually use the class name "DateFormatter" when you want > > > > > pecl/intl to be in core. "Date" is the prefix for the already > existing Date > > > > > extension. > > > > > > > > I think we still can name it DateFormatter, especially if we plan > (and we do, > > > > as I understand) to merge DateFormatter functions with ext/date in > PHP 6, and > > > > we don't have any conflict now and we do not have any plans to have > > > > DateFormatter in ext/date (correct me if I'm wrong here). > > > > > > You're wrong. We can rename it later *if* it gets merged into ext/date, > > > but you can't simply use a classname with a prefix that conflicts with > > > something else. Merging it would most likely change API anyway. > > > > I rather prefer to have this class (and related) within the ext/date > > extensions. It is the only way to have a consistent and working > > date/time API in php. Date/time formatting is part of this API. > > I've mentioned that from the beginning (and started experimenting a bit > with it already as date_format_locale()), but apparently that's not the > "correct" way.
I don't want to start yet another rant but there is two things that rather annoy me here: 1. I never heard of this mailing list, my question about its origin and whether is public or not has been simply ignored 2. It seems that there is no way to change minds of some employee(s) of some company(ies) The 2. is annoying and we have ways to force a choice, that does not worry me too much. But 1. is yet another step in the wrong direction. Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
