document.parser.inc.php code size

If you are going to use "class" to identify class contruct and rather than using "inc" which is too general how about using "function" if it is for function and "html" if it is used for html and etc.

Quote from: OpenGeek at Nov 16, 2005, 03:32 PM

the notation for identifying what role the PHP file plays is important IMO.

I can see your point to an extent especially with .class or something similar. But why specify .inc for files that are already in the includes directory? Or action.static for files in the /actions/static folder?

I’ll buy the ".class" for sure. That definitely makes sense.

I’ll pass on .inc when it’s in an includes directory, or other such nonsense. Unless any potential error reporting doesnt return the path to the erroring file.

For that matter then, we could do away with the dot notation in the file names and just organize the files into directories for includes, scripts, classes, etc. -- however, I often create a folder of resources that might have one of each of these (WebLogin snippet is an example) and I like to know which is which in that directory. I just think it’s more consistent to stick with one convention.

Hmm,

IMO .inc tells me that the file is to be included inside another file. I think we should keep it. The .class extension is also good to have

However, class and inc together is redundant; class files aren’t very useful if they aren’t included somewhere.

Quote from: OpenGeek at Nov 16, 2005, 10:06 PM

However, class and inc together is redundant; class files aren’t very useful if they aren’t included somewhere.   ;)

Hmmm,

True! All class files are considered include files but not all included files contains class objects

How classy of you to include the distinction! (Insert gong sound here...)