Standardize the name of the container configurator variable

[javiereguiluz]

I think this issue was mentioned by @ThomasLandauer in the past, and I was sure that we already had fixed it ... but I was wrong 😞

We use different variable names for similar code examples:

(1) return function(ContainerConfigurator $container) {

(2) return function(ContainerConfigurator $configurator) {

(3) return function(ContainerConfigurator $containerConfigurator) {

(3) is very rarely used, but (1) and (2) are used about the same ~50%.

So, which is your preferred variable name so we can always use the same for all code examples? Thanks!

[wouterj]

Imho, this is just a matter of "pick one and stick to it".

Since I don't really have any favor, I would chose the one used in the Service Container guide at the moment: $configurator

[ThomasLandauer]

My personal experience: Whenever I use some sort of abbreviation in a variable name myself, I'm eventually going to expand it in the next round...

And since there's probably a reason why the very class wasn't named Container or Configurator, I clearly vote for 3: $containerConfigurator.

Just for reference: This is the PR you had in mind: #17134

[alamirault]

I vote for 3: $containerConfigurator.

This avoid question naming, it's always class name.

[OskarStark]

I like it too @alamirault 👍🏻

I can create a doctor rule to ensure this

[alamirault]

I can update rst files. Which branch must be targeted ? 6.3 ?

[OskarStark]

The lowest one, 5.4, then we merge up and you can checke 6.0 and so on...

Thanks for your work ✊🏻

[OskarStark]

@javiereguiluz @weaverryan @xabbuh @wouterj please vote, thanks

[xabbuh]

I do not have any strong feeling about this, but $configurator or $containerConfigurator sound better to me than $container.

[alamirault]

I created PR #17664 to move forward, let's see if you like it or not 😄