Page MenuHomePhabricator

ef* functions and $egVars to wf* functions and $wgVars
Closed, InvalidPublic

Description

Per r70755 commit summary.

See also:

  • "function ef *"[0] in /trunk as of 16 January 2011 21:13 (UTC).
  • "$eg *"[1] in /trunk as of 16 January 2011 21:13 (UTC).

[0] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/wikimedia-svn-search/view.php?id=70&hash=1406e375d3b90612758440233d3876e9
[1] http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/wikimedia-svn-search/view.php?id=71&hash=8beb764e582fcd82017fb441505d9c0


Version: unspecified
Severity: minor

Details

Reference
bz26764

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Medium.Nov 21 2014, 11:12 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz26764.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
Krinkle created this task.Jan 16 2011, 11:39 PM

As long as its consistent within an extension, does it really matter?

(In reply to comment #1)

As long as its consistent within an extension, does it really matter?

Yep, It's not that big a deal (lowering priority). But to avoid confusion new extensions should follow the Conventions[0] and existing extensions made consistent.

[0] http://www.mediawiki.org/?title=Manual:Coding_conventions&diff=342404#Naming

Please do not change any existing global variable names. It's not worth breaking backwards compatibility.

New extensions should follow the conventions, but you can't file a bug against an extension that hasn't been written yet.

Reedy added a comment.Jan 17 2011, 5:26 AM

Certainly (I haven't looked), if it's not well documented that it "should" or is more "preferred" to be written like this, that is worth addressing.

Yay, bug 1...