Re: StudlyCaps

Melvyn Sopacua wrote:

On Wednesday 03 December 2003 23:35, Michael Walter wrote:

Markus Fischer wrote:

[...]

I like the initial argument brought up by Mr. Wendel, namely to easily differentiate between PHP method calls and userland written method calls. - Markus (and his cow)

How is this an advantage?

FWIW: it's not only an advantage, it's the reason I strive to use studlyCaps in my userland functions - because they will never clash on the next php upgrade (and the whole image* functions is a pain in the butt in that area). What happens if a php provided object I extended chooses to implement the same method and call it internally, expecting different results? Upgrading is enough hasstle. My 2c + a cow. Ah, I understand. Never got into former problems as I prefix my functions/classes with a package prefix. The latter point is interesting. Although it's true, I think you're just "moving" the problem into user-space, as it's an inherit "problem" of the language (no parametric polymorphism, no "non-virtual" calls, in c++ terminology). Like, if you have that 3rd party PHP library, and you inherit from it, you might as well run into problems if it uses studlyCaps. It definately removes the problem for built-in php functionality, though, I completely agree on that.

Cheers, Michael