[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] convention about function naming II From: eschmid+sic <email protected>
Date: 12/17/00

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 07:19:48PM +0100, André Langhorst wrote:

> c) I would suggest not to use very long function names to make people
> angry eg. "filepro","ingres","opensll","ovrimos","satellite" - I
> personally prefer using "fp","ingr","ossl","ovr" or "sat" is there any
> convention about this?

There was some time a consensus, to use longer names. Example "ii" is too
short and "ingres_ii" is to long. "ingres" is the name we use now and it
is very known to the majority of user of that database.
 
> 2) unconventional function naming caught:
>
> a) ctype - already mentioned in README that the author (Harmut) does not
> know if adding a prefix or using C-Names is preferable, I think both are
> valid

I know Hartmut very well. It seems he is knowing himself what he is doing.

> b) exif - read_exif_data (only one function)

It will be more functions in the near future.

> c) sockets

I hope you will not introduce the naming scheme from PHP/FI? MySQL
function names look to me ok.

-Egon 

-- 
http://www.linuxtag.de/
http://php.net/books.php 
http://www.concert-band.de/

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe <email protected>
For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help <email protected>
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin <email protected>