On 11/21/05, Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you should start a new language. With sensible function names,
> and anything else that you may desire. I hear it's a good exercise.
Been there, done that. Both using yacc/lex and doing recursive decent
(which was faster -- at the tim
Why not the obvious solution, Classes?
Array::merge()
String::pos()
Image::CreateFromString()
etc.
Oh the irony...
Matthew C. Kavanagh wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:09 +0100, Ron Korving wrote:
strPos()
arrayMerge()
isInt()
imageCreateFromString()
...
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Deve
It looks odd because (afaik) most of these functions were born in Unix and
were nice and short. Because of all the abbreviations they're not very
suitable for studlycaps.
Unlike the usage of underscores, the usage of studlycaps is totally optional
anyway, since function names are case insensiti
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:09 +0100, Ron Korving wrote:
> strPos()
> arrayMerge()
> isInt()
> imageCreateFromString()
fEof() or fEOF()?
addCSlashes()?
strIReplace()?
strCSpn()?
stripCSlashes()?
strIPos()?
strIStr()?
strNCaseCmp()?
strNCmp()?
strPBrk()?
strRChr()?
strRIPos()? (That one's my favourite
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 00:46 +1100, Michael Cordover wrote:
> It seems to me, therefore, that we should get rid of the underscores.
> Yes, this means changing a lot more functions around, but adding
> underscores will just make function names MORE confusing where there's
> ambiguity - and that's
forgive my copy/paste error:
"imagecreatefromstring needs no change, except that it will officially be
strPos()"
should say:
"imagecreatefromstring needs no change, except that it will officially be
imageCreateFromString()"
- Ron
""Ron Korving"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:
Nice start (your url (function list) doens't seem to work yet by the way).
Just my 2 cents:
I don't like the '2' at all. I'd rather see nltobr() and dectohex() than
nl2br() and dec2hex(). I do like the idea of loosing all underscores (but I
bet there will be quite a number of developers here wh
Sara Golemon wrote:
I say this with no degree of sarcasm or ill-will: Create a formal
proposal.
Well, you asked for it ;).
Goals:
- remove confusion when a user thinks about a function's name
- develop consistency throughout the language
- be backwards compatible as much as possible
The ba
You'll be a star in a circus.
But internals is certainly not a circus, so please keep your jokes about
yourself.
On 26.11.2005 18:44, Roman Ivanov wrote:
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no
Sara Golemon wrote:
Will your proposal be met with resistence? Certainly. Such an
undertaking represents no small amount of effort and a no less pain when
the final BC break occurs.
No need to break BC! I have a solution. All we need is to introduce
$THAT superglobal object, plus couple of n
Ok, so I know this is already close to a flamewar and I don't mean to add
to that, but how difficult would it be to select a naming scheme, shove
all the functions into and alias the non-conforming names to those
functions. New code would be consistent, old code would work. And then
at PHP 8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this has already been proposed and I missed it as I'm new to the
list, but why not set a release in the future, say PHP8, in which there
will be no holds barred about breaking bc? Everyone would know that this
upcomming release would be the one that resolves all i
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Would my response have been better if it had had a smiley attached?
The issue that Rowan brought up had been discussed multiple times before
I think the number of unreasonable requests and questions would drop
significantly if there were some kind of design digest, or
Indeed why not? Instead of adding new amazing features, I'd be just as
happy if all of the function names where standardised.
I know its not going to happen, but then, you should know that by now,
I'm not goint to stop suggesting it...
On 11/24/05, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On W
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Sergio A. Kessler wrote:
> [about namespaces]
> >
> > But many people request too. You don't *have* to use the new features if you
> > hate them.
>
> derick, this is the same song that C++ people sing along...
>
> and is a *very* flawed reason for adding mo' features...
ye
Derick Rethans wrote:
[about namespaces]
But many people request too. You don't *have* to use the new features if
you hate them.
derick, this is the same song that C++ people sing along...
and is a *very* flawed reason for adding mo' features...
regards,
/sak
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runti
On 11/22/05 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this has already been proposed and I missed it as I'm new to the
list, but why not set a release in the future, say PHP8, in which there
will be no holds barred about breaking bc? Everyone would know that this
upcomming release would be the o
i would agree with you matt :)
--
Joseph Crawford Jr.
Zend Certified Engineer
Codebowl Solutions, Inc.
1-802-671-2021
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps this has already been proposed and I missed it as I'm new to the
list, but why not set a release in the future, say PHP8, in which there
will be no holds barred about breaking bc? Everyone would know that this
upcomming release would be the one that resolves all inconsistencies with
lots of
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Rowan Lewis wrote:
> Well no, I guess you don't want to, but then do you want to keep
> adding new features following no specific naming method?
Bullshit, we have guidelines for that:
http://cvs.php.net/annotate.php/php-src/CODING_STANDARDS?rev=1.32#84
> As there are already
Well no, I guess you don't want to, but then do you want to keep
adding new features following no specific naming method? Users I know
of already complain about the lack of standard naming throughout PHP.
As there are already alot of changes in PHP6, would it really hurt
more to change to one stan
Well, this is all OK. I guess, even if it means PHP will remain messy
for more years yet.
But can someone point me as to why this (backwards) choice has been made?
On 11/22/05, Rowan Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, this is all OK. I guess, even if it means PHP will remain messy
> for mor
Rowan Lewis wrote:
Well, that just sucks. I can only dream...
Ian:
How was this mail more useful/polite/pointful than Andrei's reply?
Now remember that PHP developers get stuff like this all the time, yet
users most of the time just come here to complain now and then. Its like
working at Wal
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 02:45, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> Would my response have been better if it had had a smiley attached?
Whilst RFC 1855 does say 'Don't assume that the inclusion of a smiley will
make the recipient happy with what you say or wipe out an otherwise insulting
comment.', I wo
Rowan,
This book should be a good start:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558604421/
HTH,
-Andrei
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Rowan Lewis wrote:
Andrei, I would if I could!
Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to begin, having never coded
anything that complicated before.
I've actu
Would my response have been better if it had had a smiley attached?
I've been on both sides of this: as a language user, back in 1998,
and as the developer since then. A lot of times it feels that the
users take a lot for granted and expect the developers to produce a
positive response to t
Andrei, I would if I could!
Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to begin, having never coded
anything that complicated before.
I've actually written a huge amount of specs for a language, but as I
can't code it, there is little hope.
All I can do is annoy you guys ;)
On 11/22/05, Andrei Zmiev
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 00:20, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> Maybe you should start a new language. With sensible function names,
> and anything else that you may desire. I hear it's a good exercise.
Accepting the risk of starting a flame war where 101 PHP developers start to
hate me, I feel I s
Maybe you should start a new language. With sensible function names,
and anything else that you may desire. I hear it's a good exercise.
-Andrei
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Rowan Lewis wrote:
Well, that just sucks. I can only dream...
On 11/22/05, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Well, that just sucks. I can only dream...
On 11/22/05, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rowan Lewis wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but will there be any
> > name changes with functions?
> >
> > I know it would break everything, but it would also help PHP.
>
Rowan Lewis wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but will there be any
> name changes with functions?
>
> I know it would break everything, but it would also help PHP.
>
> file_get_contetns VS. FileGetContents...
Not going to happen, existing function names will remain as they
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but will there be any
name changes with functions?
I know it would break everything, but it would also help PHP.
file_get_contetns VS. FileGetContents...
On 11/22/05, Rowan Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the best place to
32 matches
Mail list logo
