* Thus wrote Gabor Hojtsy: > > > > Right now we have the title's of stuff that vary a lot. Some are > > prefixed with 'Object' other's have the word 'Keyword' appended. > > I'm thinking we should get rid of those pre and post words and > > just do stuff like: > > Constants > > Abstraction > > ... > > > > The only two I don't see that fit that naming scheme are final > > and static, they don't make sense to me without some sort of text > > around them. > > It is nice to have helper words when the meaning of something is not > clear. Like you would not remove 'methods' from after 'magic' :) or you > would not remove 'objects' after 'comparing', since the 'comparing' word > alone would not provide much clue on what is going on.
I might have been a little unclear on this. right now the current items are: Static Object Constants Object Abstraction Object Interfaces Overloading Object Iteration Magic Methods Final Keyword Object cloning Comparing objects Reflection Would be better as: Static Constants Abstraction Interfaces Overloading Iteration Magic Methods Final Keyword Cloning Comparing objects Reflection I might just being too picky here, I'm perfectly fine with the current names we have. > > >What to do with the built in classes and implementations: > > > > Like implementing Iterator (and all that SPL stuff if applicable) > > extending the Exception class etc. > > I don't understand the question. Built in classes should be at the > relevant appendix. Iterators and Exceptions should have their own parts > otherwise: iterators under the OOP 5 part where they are currently, > exceptions on the language reference level as a new section. Sorry, i was kind of thinking outloud here. I'm not entirely sure what I was asking either, but your explantation clears things up. Thanks. Curt -- First, let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes you've been hearing about. No, sir. Our model is the trapezoid!
