> > It already "blew up" existing applications before this commit.
>
> I'd say that all extensions should really follow the 1 prefix per ext
> for anything that ends up in the global namespace (classes, functions.
> constants ..) rule. Just as we did in the past with new procudural
> extension
Hello Jared,
Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 1:58:04 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> I'd say that all extensions should really follow the 1 prefix
>> per ext for anything that ends up in the global namespace
>> (classes, functions.
>> constants ..) rule. Just as we did in the past with new
>> procudural extens
>
> I'd say that all extensions should really follow the 1 prefix
> per ext for anything that ends up in the global namespace
> (classes, functions.
> constants ..) rule. Just as we did in the past with new
> procudural extensions.
>
> This has the advantage of:
> - limiting the number of nam
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Andrey Hristov wrote:
isn't this going to blow up existing applications that define class
File?
It already "blew up" existing applications before this commit.
I'd say that all extensions should really follow the 1 prefix per ext
for anything that ends up in the global
Andrey Hristov wrote:
> isn't this going to blow up existing applications that define class
> File?
It already "blew up" existing applications before this commit.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B
