Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers

Bertrand Mansion wrote:

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 ?

Well, the question is whether the whole vote idea as on PEAR-Dev was really such a good idea. Because such changes are supposed to be proposed as RFCs with official voting via PEPr [1]. I guess minor things may qualify for a +/- vote on pear-dev, such as the flyer designs proposed (time was a definite factor there).

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.

I think you are mistaken. Iirc, Aidan was persuaded that the underscore is an unnecessary ballast for protected items. Btw, I guess both Alexey and I (and initially it was me, of course) are guilty of responding to each other's comments in PEPr, which is against the RFC. Sorry about that. I completely forgot that part of the RFC on Rules and RFCs until I reread it tonight. :-) Klaus [1] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=39