James Moore wrote:
>>>>>How do you feel about renaming the existing diskfreespace()
>>>>>function to disk_free_space() (with an alias for backwards
>>>>>compatibility)?
>>>>>
>>>>A warm fuzzy feeling :) Seriously though, it's been discussed in
>>>>great length, and at least from what I understood, going in that
>>>>direction was the general idea. Slowly, but surely :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually, at least what I remember from the conversations, this was
>>>being put off till someone actually did some work at renaming a set of
>>>the functions, and there are still a good number of unresolved issues
>>>regarding function naming (str_tok() or strtok() to name one). At this
>>>point, I think placing it in there as disktotalspace() and leaving
>>>diskfreespace() alone would be the right thing to do. Then
>>>
>>when all the
>>
>>>naming issues are hashed out/someone has some work to show, change both
>>>of the functions to their proper names. At this point a
>>>disk_free_space() function seems out of place in the current naming
>>>scheme (I wouldn't object as much to disk_freespace() and
>>>disk_totalspace(), but overall, I think we should wait until
>>>
>>the rest of
>>
>>>the source is namespace complaint and we've decided how to handle the
>>>change to the new naming conventions.)
>>>
>>Ugh. I wish I had read this a few minutes earlier. I just made
>>the name change based on what I assumed was consensus.
>>
>>If someone feels the need to revert the change, go ahead. I
>>prefer to just leave it now that I've already changed it, and
>>then I'll add the new function as disk_total_space().
>>
>
> Why add more functions to be depreciated soon?? Lets name new functions
> properly, bring others into line as and when and as needed add alaises until
> we fix it.
>
Well, for one thing, no one has agreed on a naming convention yet.
So its possible that now we'll have two aliases:
diskfreespace
disk_free_space
and then the actual function name:
disk_freespace()
or
disk_space_free()
Furthermore, it was never agreed that the core functions should follow
any naming conventions. In fact, I think that would be plain stupid.
The extensions should follow a naming convention, however, the core
functions need not follow any such convention. This is how it is with
almost every other language (Perl and C for example).
-Sterling
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
