Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

From: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:23:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Andrea Faulds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
>> On 4 Feb 2015, at 17:10, Crypto Compress <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would go with Http\
>>
>> Why not the reserved Php\Http\?
>
> This sounds good to me. php\ is already reserved, and it’s similar to the common community
> convention of vendor\packagename. (e.g. ajf\escapes.) Would work well with Composer and Packagist
> too, as it could be a virtual php/http package (Packagist naming convention).
>
> Also, I’d like to say I’d prefer php\HTTP or php\http over php\Http. Capitalising an
> acronym doesn’t feel right to me, perhaps because case is usually significant, Following the
> Casing Rules Used by Titles. Of php\HTTP and php\http, php\http is probably better since the case
> matches that of php\. It could also be PHP\HTTP, I guess, but lowercase is somehow more appealing to
> me.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm not sure about namespacing it in the first place, but otherwise I
agree with you - acronyms should be capitalised.

Some <put a popular styleguide here> nazis probably won't agree, but
capitalising only the first letter of an acronym does feel really
weird.

Cheers,
Andrey.


Thread (55 messages)

« previous php.internals (#81825) next »