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. As I can understand the need to have one single extension in this phase (or the early stage), it would make sense to think about integrating part of the ICU with the existing PHP extension or features. By the way, when was this list created? Why discussions about the development of this upcoming core extension are not public and under php.net? I don't think it is a good thing and I dislike this way of working. 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
