On 04/02/15 18:57, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:17 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?
> Personally,
>
> From my userland point of view, I would expect it to follow the same
> capitalization rules as classes are supposed to follow, making it
> "Php\Http".
So, should I make a separate vote out of this?
* http
* HTTP
* Http
* php\http
* PHP\HTTP
* Php\Http
* PHttP
The last one was a joke actually, well, lame, I know.
Can we rule any of these out definitely?
As already mentioned, the case is not as relevant because we don't
depend on an autoloader...
--
Regards,
Mike