So for a whole year none of you (not even the Zend employees that should know better) thought that there maight be a coding standard that you should follow?
We followed the coding standard. Coding standard never says there should be single prefix per extension and this prefix should be extension name.
And the changes requested by us still haven't been made.
If you know of any change that wasn't made, please send it to me. We talked a lot about the manual - and the fact that there was no any standard about how to document such extensions and I had to redo it anew about 3 times because nobody could give me definitive docs about how to do it - but I'm ok with that, that'd normal growth process. But if you have problems there - please do tell, and using normall process that we used to have.
Few people want this extension to be moved to core, which means: every decision about this extension is "deciding anything about PHP".
The people then need to take part in the discussion, when invited. We can not have people silent for the whole length of discussion and implementation - which btw was repeatedly announced and comments solicited, and also beta was published, etc. - but then close to release come and say "ok, we like it other way, redo everything".
This thread originated on [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is a big fat problem. Why didn't you use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because php-icu is a working list. If you want to work on the project - and I mean really work, not just saying "it cannot go into core" - you are welcome, please state in which areas you want to contribute and we'll discuss it.
-- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
