* Thus wrote Jay Blanchard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I will definitely agree that there are a few inconsistencies in the > function naming... more than likely due to the many many contributors, > and a lack of strict naming conventions.
Actually there is a scrict nameing convetion. > > Never quite understood (for example) why half of the string based > functions are named str* and the other half str_*, eg > > str_replace, str_pad, str_repeat, str_word_count, etc as opposed to > strlen, strrev, strstr, strchr, strpos, etc You'll find that the str* names are a direct decendent to the C string library (man 3 string), and some other standard c libraries. and the str_* names are specific to php. > > But all it really means is another trip to the manual if my first > "guess" for the function name doesn't work. > > > It'd be nice if things could have been standardised in PHP5, with > aliases to the functions with older (deprecated?) names, but I guess > it's WAAAY too late for that!! I would strongly disagree with deprecating the str* functions. I and a lot of php programmers know exactly what strncmp does the instant we look at it. This nameing convetion has been around for many years and many people have used these. > > Justin Um.. is it jay or justin or both? This kind of confused me :) Curt -- "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure." -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
