On Tue, May 16, 2006 2:30 pm, Jonathan Chaffer said:
On May 16, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Earl Miles wrote:
Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
I don't think this is a real problem. The number of hooks isn't all that big so you can easily work around it. This is the kind of API change even I don't need.
I concur. I think we're better off using api.module to publish a list of hooks and saying "Please avoid ending your function names with these hooks, Just In Case."
This has nothing to do with hooks, actually. It has to do with function names. There are 22 modules called "taxonomy_something" in contrib alone. If taxonomy.module adds a function that begins with any one of those "taxonomy_something"s, then a module breaks. It doesn't matter whether or not that function is a hook.
This isn't a big problem right now. It could become one in the future. We should come up with a convention now that will prevent matters from getting worse later.
If you must camelCase something, wouldn't camelCasing the module name be less painful than the hook? There's at least fewer of them, I believe. Vis, easier to rename 22 taxonomy_something to taxonomySomething than to rename 2200 hook_something to hookSomething. --Larry Garfield