Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers

PEPr wrote: > >Klaus Guenther (http://pear.php.net/user/thesaur) has commented on the proposal >for RFC::ProtectedMembers. > >Comment: > >The problem with Alexey's proposal is that he ignores the fact that maintaining >status quo does not require people to jump through hoops. This is the basis of >democracy and the PEAR voting system. This RFC proposes to /change/ the status >quo. Therefore, it is properly formulated. Unfortunately, it comes too late. People who were interested in the topic already had a chance to express their opinion and did. We have already had a voting session and, correct me if I am wrong, the results were against the '_' prefix for protected vars/methods. Thus, why would we need to vote again ? It is funny that both voting sessions have been initiated by people apparently strongly in favor of the '_'. Is this RFC to be seen as the last chance to have this '_' rule integrated into the PEAR CS ? This does not look very fair. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam