Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::ProtectedMembers

Hans Lellelid wrote:

Lukas Smith wrote:

For the record: I think this is a non issue. I find the underscore to be convinient, little effort to do, and not such a dramatic uglifier of my code. Then again while I am debugging my code locally in php5 I will be able to quickly make out if I screwed up. if this is going to help me while doing emergency repairs on a remote host is another question ..?

It may be trivial, but if so then it should be a recommendation not a requirement. You do it, that's fine; it may make your code more convenient to read, but it won't make mine anything but uglier. I do agree it's trivial, but I just don't want my code constrained by a non-sensical, trivial, requirement that is unique to PHP -- nay, PEAR -- and which was voted into existence by people who don't use PHP5.

You're making a mistake here. It was in existance _before_ PHP5. Your argument basically states that CS is stupid. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. You base everything on the fact that the underscore for protected items is new. It is not. It is a PEAR requirement. If you believe it does not make sense, support the RFC against it. But don't whine about it being "ugly" or that people "who don't use PHP5" are forcing it on others. Realize that you are trying to remove this requirement from the PEAR coding standards. I think Lukas and Alan make a good point about remote host usage. This certainly helps prevent mistakes. If anyone says something about writing a new editor just for that purpose, it shows nonsensical hostility of the person who says that toward other coders. Write it yourself and then others might agree with you.

So, would PHPUnit2 be forced to break BC and prefix all protected members with '_'?

Yes, but get this: it wouldn't be a BC break, because all private/protected members are subject to change without notice anyway. Klaus