Hi
Friday, December 14, 2001, 10:41:50 AM, you wrote: >> > > Therefore I thought this way of writing the protos is ok. >> > > One says care for the pear standards, others say do not. >> > > So how should this be done in the future? >> > >> > There must be some standard, we should not let alone all >> > writers IMHO, to write things in their own preference. >> > We have the 4 space rule, and other things. Previously >> > we agreed (??) to use the PEAR standard. There were not >> > too much talk about this... >> >> I know myself many writers personally :) There havenŽ t been not so >> much talk about this problem because I have not so much free time as >> you. The PHP documentation doesnŽ t use the so called PEAR standard. >> It is only you who want this change. Please see it in a real world. >> We cannot change the PHP manuals, if someone make a commit into the >> documentation rules. > As you can see in the commit history, it was _not_ me, who added > that "convention". @Goba: In fact it was me. My intention was _not_ to blame you for something I am responsible for. I did it, I care for it. @Egon: Please keep in maind the main purpose of this commit was _not_ to introduce any "convention". I added some stuff php.ini related and nuked out mysql_db_query from the examples. In this context I changed the examples to this "convention". Indeed Goba mentioned this convention, but I also had a look at the current howto and found myself conform to this. I used the resources provided for phpoc related problems/questions/issues: the mailing list and the current howto. Therefore I cant see whats wrong. I can revert the changes for these function protos- no prob. It doesn't matter to me how the protos are written. > But I think it is useful to have one standard. > It eases the reading of the manual. There is one standard > developed by PHP developers, the PEAR standard. I don't say we > _need to_ force everybody to use this. I say it would be good > to have any common standard for the PHP codes in the manual, including > how we present sample outputs, and the like... This not only > eases the reading, but also eases the writing, as someone need > not ask about how this should be written (as happened in the > past - this was because this thread was started), because it > is written down. Converting all the documentation examples is > of course not a days work, but we can switch to use one > standard slowly step by step, while upgrading the examples, > and descriptions. I aggree with you, Goba. If there are any conventions (regardless what in detail, pear standard or not...) they should be clear for everyone or in a place where someone can take a look at. so far Friedhelm
