Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » Repeat question on underscore »

Repeat question on underscore

php.internals

Lester Caine

22 years ago
I have not had an answer yet so I will rephrase the question. Not following all the discussions on studlyCaps and their adoption, I am having a little trouble understanding the implications. The current php manual has hundreds of functions with underscore in the name. Are these all going to be replaced? In which case ALL existing script has to be re-written? If not, just where is the line drawn? I hope that people can see my confusion.
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Ard Biesheuvel

22 years ago
Lester Caine wrote:
> The current php manual has hundreds of functions with underscore in the > name. Are these all going to be replaced? In which case ALL existing > script has to be re-written?
No, studly caps have been adopted as a standard only for method names in the OO-style API, not for the procedural API.
-- Ard

Lester Caine

22 years ago
Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote: > >> The current php manual has hundreds of functions with underscore in >> the name. Are these all going to be replaced? In which case ALL >> existing script has to be re-written? > > No, studly caps have been adopted as a standard only for method names in > the OO-style API, not for the procedural API.
Thanks for that. So it IS something that I will have to take account of when I start looking at moving the interbase module to a firebird native version. If the interbase module accesses the OO-style API. If it does not, then I presume that it may be advantageous to handle any required conversions then?
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Ard Biesheuvel

22 years ago
Lester Caine wrote:
> So it IS something that I will have to take account of when I start > looking at moving the interbase module to a firebird native version. If > the interbase module accesses the OO-style API. If it does not, then I > presume that it may be advantageous to handle any required conversions > then?
Interesting ... I am curious what your motivation is for moving the Interbase module to a fb version. Furthermore, the studly caps standard was adopted for PHP methods, and not for the C (implementation) level, so this will hardly be of influence to extension implementers.
-- Ard

Lester Caine

22 years ago
Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Interesting ... > I am curious what your motivation is for moving the Interbase module to > a fb version.
Divergence of the API layers, and I would like to get into some of the facilities that are currently not very well supported. There is no panic on this which is why I'm happy to wait until PHP5 has been released, but it may become a problem.
> Furthermore, the studly caps standard was adopted for PHP > methods, and not for the C (implementation) level, so this will hardly > be of influence to extension implementers.
I've spent a lot more time fault finding with the likes of the ADOdb layer, than the next layer down, and currently having to live with the inactivity of Borland on Builder VCL support, I'm looking to the future. When I see major changes taking place I get a bit jittery - I've already lived through three rebuilds of my application code base thanks to Borland, and so I don't want to back the wrong horse this time :)
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services