Re: [PHP-DEV] convention about function naming II From: Andi Gutmans (andi <email protected>)
Date: 12/17/00

At 19:19 17/12/00 +0100, André Langhorst wrote:
>I have searched through almost all extensions and discovered the following
>things:
>
>1)
>a) is it proposed that experimental extensions *always* have to prefix
>their names and ought to put an EXPERIMENTAL file into their folder?
>if not I think it would make sense
>
>b) is anywhere defined if ext_* or ext* is the preferred naming, currently
>both are mixed up, I find ext_* more readable

ext_* is the convention.

>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?

I prefer using long ones unless it really makes no sense. Short ones
clobber the function table and are less readable. It's not a big deal to
type an extra 3 chars.

>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
>
>b) exif - read_exif_data (only one function)

Should be exif_read_data().

>c) sockets
>
>andré
>
>
>--
>· André Langhorst · t: +49 571 3201801 ·
>· waldschrott <email protected> · m: +49 173 9558736 ·
>· PHP Quality Assurance · http://qa.php.net ·
>
>
>--
>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> 

---
Andi Gutmans <andi <email protected>>
http://www.zend.com/

-- 
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>