Date: 12/20/00
- Next message: Andi Gutmans: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Branches on Zend and TSRM CVS trees"
- Previous message: Zak Greant: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] conventionabout function naming II"
- In reply to: Ron Chmara: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] convention aboutfunction naming II"
- Next in thread: Zak Greant: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] conventionaboutfunction naming II"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ron Chmara wrote:
> Jouni Ahto wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> > > Also, there was some discussion a few months ago about normalizing all
of
> > > the function names.
> > > We have a lot of functions that do not conform to the standard. IIRC,
the
> > > discussion on the phpdoc list was to create a conforming alias for
each
> > > non-conforming function and as time permits, document that the old
names are
> > > deprecated. Then perhaps next major release or two - PHP 5 or 6 -the
old
> > > names stop working.
> > Just to note, one big problem will be the documentation. With one
> > conforming to the rules and (one|two|three|...) non-conforming names,
it's
> > going to be a bit hard. Or at least a bit hard to use the documentation.
>
> That was actually one of the first things that introduced this issue. :-)
Most
> names may have one revision (three? havn't seen that yet). The doc list
passed
> around some ideas, it was also discussed on php-dev, and the current
results
> of those discussions are in there....(see below)
>
> > I
> > haven't seen any good solutions in DocBook XML for this. Tagging
something
> > as <note>... In PHP ?.--?.?, this function foo_bar_create was called
> > FooBarCreate ...</note><note>... In PHP ?.?.--?, this function
> > FooBarCreate was called FooBar ...</note> isn't it.
>
> Only the current, official, name of the current, official, function will
be
> completely documented. The others are documented as deprecated variants on
> the name....
> so the above is very close. It sure beats having a separate manual entry
each for
> FooBar, Foo_Bar, FoBar, or a different set of manual pages for each
> change. This too, is part of the documentation... phpdoc/README.
Hmmm... I should really learn how to read...
> > PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_SOMEDAY(foo, bar [, ...])
> > PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_VERY_SOON(foo, bar [, ...])
> > PHP_FALIAS_WILL_BE_DEPRECATED_REALLY_SOON_NOW(foo, bar [, ...])
>
> LOL! However, I think the code will probably "age" differently, where
> somebody can just look through CVS for when it was aliased, if they
> feel like deleting it is a really important task, and bring it up then...
> However, in 3 years, chances are that many modules may be re-written
> anyways, for other reasons (see oracle/oci8), so this isn't really
> that critical of an issue, is it?
True enough for a lot of the 'external' modules. However, I don't
know how much change the core functions, like 'isset' will see...
> Re: The prior dicusssion of Sept. 12:
> The difficulty in handling the actual retiring (not just the "official"
> deprecation of the usage) wasn't really concluded AFAICR, other than
> "not right now, but later (maybe)", with an emphasis kept on
compatibility. To
> summarize that discussion, there were three general schools of thought:
>
> 1. Deprecate early, deprecate hard, cut out the old one entirely.
> 2. Age it out gracefully, somehow. The "how" wasn't clearly defined.
> 3. De-document it, but leave it usable, possibly forever.
>
> There was no concensus reached, other than informing current users that
> function names were deprecated (via the manual) was good, and that
> breaking lots of code at one time was a bad thing. I think that most
> users expect that 2 major revs will mean some major changes (hence,
> PHP 5, PHP 6) so function names from PHP 3 that are being "aged" may
> be cut out then.... it doesn't actually _break_ anything to leave them
> in there, though, does it?
Perhaps this is something that the core developers could answer?
What is the performance lost by maintaining a large number of
aliases? Would it really be noticeable?
--zak
BTW Thanks for the summary Ron!
-- 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>
- Next message: Andi Gutmans: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Branches on Zend and TSRM CVS trees"
- Previous message: Zak Greant: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] conventionabout function naming II"
- In reply to: Ron Chmara: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] convention aboutfunction naming II"
- Next in thread: Zak Greant: "[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] conventionaboutfunction naming II"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

