On Mar 23, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 11:12 AM 3/23/2004 -0800, Sterling Hughes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Chris Shiflett wrote:
--- Georg Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Sure, your book isn't ready yet.
Is this really the criteria being used to support a lack of consistency?
This sort of thing (inconsistency) is one reason why PHP is frequently
attacked
and attacking scripts is terrorism, thus georg's violation of a never agreed upon standard is in support of terrorism.
thus php supports terrorism - i always thought that elephant was for smuggling nuclear material.
wmd.
all that because MySQLi's naming conventions violate the pleasure of some people on the list. Georg made his decision on this, and there are enough developers against it to backup his decision - can we please find another dead horse to beat? ;-)
Sterling. We did come to a decision on this mailing list. In case you were asleep, well read the archives.
I didn't say there was no decision - I said there was no agreement.
And no, I don't think we should make decisions about PHP based on books. Zeev's book with PHP 5 support came out a few months ago and we broke half the things which he wrote about it. He'll need to create a new edition and I don't remember him even once complaining about it, because he did what was best for PHP.
Well, if I honestly believed there were a practical advantage to this, I might feel differently. The changes that obsoleted Zeev's book prematurely were rather big and necessary, this is small and is for "consistency."
The fact is that consistency is important for PHP, wether it is studlyCaps or underscores. We just happened to have decided on studlyCaps, if you don't like it then you had your chance to voice this when it was discuss on [EMAIL PROTECTED] We can't continue to open issues every month or two.
I agree. But given that its a rather weak argument either way (*), we should respect the extension maintainer's wishes. Georg spent a lot of time writing this extension, and he's expressed his wishes that the extension's OO API remain the same, and provided a valid technical reason, whether people agree with it or not.
-Sterling
(*) Ie, you have no practical advantage besides "consistency." As you know, PHP will never be a consistent language, neither in approach nor in API. That doesn't mean imho one should add more inconsistency lightly, but it s not like MySQLi is violating the pristine mathematical equation that makes up the PHP programming language with dirty thoughts of underscores.
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
