Lukas Smith wrote:
Actually I think it is even an
advantage because it makes me differentiate procedural code from OO code
more easily.
that would be an argument for C++ where calls to member functions
look exactly like calls to functions from the global scope
in PHP the difference becomes rather
> From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:53 PM
>
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
>
> > > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:39 PM
> >
> > > > The fact that PEAR has a serious problem e
> From: Lukas Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:46 PM
> > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:46 PM
>
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
> > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:39 PM
>
> > > The fact that PEAR has a serious problem extending non studlyCap objects
> > is
> > > probably something a lot of people in PHP core don't care about.
>
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:46 PM
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
>
> > > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:39 PM
> >
> > > > The fact that PEAR has a serious problem ext
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Lukas Smith wrote:
> > From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:39 PM
>
> > > The fact that PEAR has a serious problem extending non studlyCap objects
> > is
> > > probably something a lot of people in PHP core don't care about.
>
> From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:39 PM
> > The fact that PEAR has a serious problem extending non studlyCap objects
> is
> > probably something a lot of people in PHP core don't care about.
>
> Please elaborate.
Well if I extend a clas
> The fact that PEAR has a serious problem extending non studlyCap objects is
> probably something a lot of people in PHP core don't care about.
Please elaborate.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:16:14 +0100 (CET)
Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, as (hopefully) a last post from me in this thread, the fact is
> > the"UglyCaps" is widely used, with PHP and others OO langages. The
> > fact is that is somehow a de facto standard and ease our life to
>
> From: Hartmut Holzgraefe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:31 PM
> Lukas Smith wrote:
> >>Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> >>
> >>>And except StudlyCaps is ugly and foo_bar is modern, any realistic
> >>>and objective pros to keep foo_bar?
> >>
> >>readability
> >
>
Lukas Smith wrote:
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
And except StudlyCaps is ugly and foo_bar is modern, any realistic
and objective pros to keep foo_bar?
readability
I dont find it unreadable.
it is not unreadable but it is definetly *less* readble
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
PHP
> Do you think this inconsistency is worth it, even if it turns out that most
> of our bindings turn out to choose studyCaps?
Certainly. And I am pretty sure that many binding authors
will understand why uglyCaps are largely inferior in the area
of comprehension.
> No doubt the non s
> From: Sascha Schumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:16 PM
> > Well, as (hopefully) a last post from me in this thread, the fact is the
> > "UglyCaps" is widely used, with PHP and others OO langages. The fact
> > is that is somehow a de facto standard and ease
> Well, as (hopefully) a last post from me in this thread, the fact is the
> "UglyCaps" is widely used, with PHP and others OO langages. The fact
> is that is somehow a de facto standard and ease our life to
> bind/port/extend/whatever existing codes/applications/libraries using
> php.
Look, m
> From: Hartmut Holzgraefe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:03 PM
> Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> > And except StudlyCaps is ugly and foo_bar is modern, any realistic
> > and objective pros to keep foo_bar?
>
> readability
I dont find it unreadable.
Anyways this
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
And except StudlyCaps is ugly and foo_bar is modern, any realistic
and objective pros to keep foo_bar?
readability
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:44:52 +0100 (CET)
Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is that uglyCaps are backwards, a hack/workaround
> for a missing feature in a language.
>
> uglyCaps have no inherent advantage which should be
> considered by those advocating their wi
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:02:00 +0100
> Ulf Wendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Most PHP extension have a functional interface. If some extension will
>>become an OO API in the future this API should not differ from the
>>functional API. I don't see a good reason why I we sh
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:05:19 +0100 (CET)
> Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fortunately, we can avoid falling into that trap. PHP
> > supports underscores, and terminals which cannot display the
> > character correctly don't prevail any longer.
>
> If you consider this
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
OK, then mail to java (for the java binder), microsoft (com binder and
w32 ext), libxml (and related tools), w3c (dom and others std), python
(python binder), postgres, wxwindows (should come as
well soon or later)... teams and ask them to move to the modern times as
well ;
Thanks for the history, always funny :)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:05:19 +0100 (CET)
Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fortunately, we can avoid falling into that trap. PHP
> supports underscores, and terminals which cannot display the
> character correctly don't prevail any l
Here is more on the history of uglyCaps:
http://www.testingcraft.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?StudlyCaps
Quote:
``Round about 1978, I remember using a terminal, said to be "a
European one", that displayed the underscore character
as a backward arrow. Some programming
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:30:08 +0100
Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the reasons that you don't see PHP 3 in use anymore is that
> the transition was so easy. Now that we have even more installations
> out there and a lot of open projects that run on PHP 4 it is even
> more im
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
This BC thingies in PHP5 sound always weird or silly to me (in most
cases). Why in the world do we need a major release if on each case we
have to take care of php4?
One of the reasons that you don't see PHP 3 in use anymore is that
the transition was so easy. Now that we h
Hello,
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:02:00 +0100
Ulf Wendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nevertheless I preferr PHP not to use studyCaps for it's native
> functions/methods/whatever. It seperates the build-in functionality
> nicely from my code.
I like the counter and nicely move from PHP classes to
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:52:35 +0100
Ulf Wendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
obj->php_native_func()
obj->myFunc()
Quick thought, does that work with overload? See Lukas post.
I'm not sure if I understand this. Is there any warranty that overloaded
stuff will always follow t
Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
Underscore-delimited identifiers are preferred in Ada and Ruby, while
they don't seem to be in Java, Objective C, SmallTalk, C# and ECMAScript.
(How about Python...?)
i guess i finally identified the original source of studlyCaps: SmallTalk
as far as i can tell from the
Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: can you prove that 99.% figure? i'd believe a value of maybe
> 80% but definetly not 99.% ;)
Underscore-delimited identifiers are preferred in Ada and Ruby, while
they don't seem to be in Java, Objective C, SmallTalk, C# and ECMASc
> From: Hartmut Holzgraefe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:52 PM
> Lukas Smith wrote:
> > Aside from that yes it will be a major problem for PEAR if objects don't
> > follow studyCaps as this means we will have to either kick our CS or
> wrap
> > objects instead
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 11:33 Europe/Copenhagen, Sascha Schumann
> wrote:
>
> > Heavy -1 on making hardTooTypeAndEvenWorseToReadCaps a
> > recommendation for the APIs exposed by PHP.
>
> Are you suggesting that we do not have a standard
Lukas Smith wrote:
Aside from that yes it will be a major problem for PEAR if objects don't
follow studyCaps as this means we will have to either kick our CS or wrap
objects instead of just exending them.
i agree that it is way to late now for changing things in PEAR
but i still think it was a bad
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:52:35 +0100
Ulf Wendel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> php_native_func()
> myFunc()
We are not talking about function names but methods.
> or even:
>
> obj->php_native_func()
> obj->myFunc()
Quick thought, does that work with overload? See Lukas post.
pierre
--
PHP Inter
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
-[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
This is insane.
It's not. Using underscores for all native PHP functions seperates them
nicely from PHP based code, eg. PEAR code.
php_native_func()
myFunc()
or even:
obj->php_native_func()
obj->myFunc
On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 11:33 Europe/Copenhagen, Sascha Schumann
wrote:
Heavy -1 on making hardTooTypeAndEvenWorseToReadCaps a
recommendation for the APIs exposed by PHP.
Are you suggesting that we do not have a standard here as Derick is
suggesting, or to keep the current PHP codi
> From: Hartmut Holzgraefe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:48 AM
> Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> > And now I'm wondering why that suddenly becomes ugly and, as pointed
> > Sebastion, why PHP should follow different things than 99.% of
> > others OO langages.
>
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
And now I'm wondering why that suddenly becomes ugly and, as pointed
Sebastion, why PHP should follow different things than 99.% of
others OO langages.
one reason might bee that we do not have case sensitive function names
so that it is possible to use whatever "CAPSula
Magnus Määttä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC there was an agreement a few months ago to use studlyCaps after
> some lengthy thread..
If so, I see no problem then. I'm just afraid of an implicit and
kind of informal agreement off the list.
Moriyoshi
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
Hi
> > As far as I'm concerned, no such agreement that it is a requirement
> > was made so far on this list... (correct me if I'm wrong)
>
> Well, no idea about when we should consider something agreed or not.
> However here is the archives:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=10571567170
Heavy -1 on making hardTooTypeAndEvenWorseToReadCaps a
recommendation for the APIs exposed by PHP.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
See http://pear.php.net/news/meeting-2003-summary.php. Especially this
line:
"PHP object-oriented APIs should follow the PEAR coding standards."
i don't remember this and even if i did i don't think a PEAR project
meeting is able to take any decision on how PHP core develop
On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 11:13 Europe/Copenhagen, Moriyoshi
Koizumi wrote:
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
-[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
This is insane.
Whether you like it or not, most people wh
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:13:13 +0900
Moriyoshi Koizumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > > -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
> > >
> > > This is insane.
> > >
>
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
> >
> > This is insane.
> >
> > Whether you like it or not, most people who use programming languages
> > that support the pa
Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
> Meeting where you, Sebastian Bergmann, Hartmut Holzgraefe, Jeroen
> Houben, Wolfram Kriesing, Jan Lehnardt, George Schlossnagle,
> Lukas Smith, Markus Wolff and Jani were present (add those I forgot ;)
> ), and all people online via IRC.
I was not at this meeting.
--
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:42:33 +0100 (CET)
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
> > Derick Rethans wrote:
> > > -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
> >
> > This is insane.
> >
> > Whether you like it or not, most people who use program
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Derick Rethans wrote:
> > -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
>
> This is insane.
>
> Whether you like it or not, most people who use programming languages
> that support the paradigm of object-orientation use studlyCaps (or
> whatever
> From: admin [mailto:admin] On Behalf Of Sebastian Bergmann
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:36 AM
> Derick Rethans wrote:
> > -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
>
> This is insane.
>
> Whether you like it or not, most people who use programming languages
> that support the
Derick Rethans wrote:
> -[6] Method names follow the 'studlyCaps'
This is insane.
Whether you like it or not, most people who use programming languages
that support the paradigm of object-orientation use studlyCaps (or
whatever you want to call them).
I think it is not a good idea to s
48 matches
Mail list logo
