Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers

Pepr wrote:

Thomas V.V.Cox (http://pear.php.net/user/cox) has commented on the proposal for RFC::ProtectedMembers. Comment: I assume that for private members the underscore is a must. I'd add that to the RFC.

Perhaps the issue of coding standards for private memebers in PHP5 should be the subject of another RFC, as it's not that related to the issue of protected. While current PEAR coding standards could be enforced for PHP5 classes, I'm not sure it's necessary, since private is now really & truly private for a class. IMO this should be up to the package developer(s) since it affects no one else. Also, not to point fingers, but last I looked PHPUnit2 does not use '_' as prefix for private members. I also don't in classes I write, because for me it's the rule & to prefix is overkill. I haven't yet confused myself; perhaps when I do I'll buy into the PEAR Hungarian-style notation. Hans