Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers
| From: | Alan Knowles | Date: | Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:49:01 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-31242@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
We already have lots of silly naming convensions WhichMayOrMayNot aid readibility.. - but I dont think having _underscore prefixing protected vars/methods is going to any more of a hastle than our existing rules..The other langauges that I know of that support private & protected vars don't have any silly naming convention to indicate the priv/protected status of variables. Most other languages dont have silly ($) to indicate variables, but in some people view (like me) they make an incredible improvement in readibility (although in reality they are there to speed up the parser).
Regards Alan"PHP5, you're access enforcement features are not good enough for us!"To add fuel to the fire an IDE may be able to show the scope. Very few of them do.. - when I ssh into a remote server, on the other side of the planet, to locate a bug in a pear package, vi for sure doesnt do it... (yes I do that alot!)
Arnaud.