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

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:44:48 +0200, Bertrand Mansion <bmansion@mamasam.com> wrote: > > Alan Knowles wrote: > > >Arnaud Limbourg wrote: > > > >>>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). > > > >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.. > > IIRC, you explained in a recent message that, in DataObject, you use the '_' > prefix on public variables in order to have them look different from the > variables associated with table fields. In a way, you took the liberty not to > follow PEAR CS in order to serve your code readability in a way you were > thinking would help the end-users. > Actually, I said that and it was for DB_DataObject_FormBuilder, not DB_DataObject. The variables are members of DataObjects, but they're used by FormBuilder. This is a non-issue anyway as we're planning on changing it to fb_ before 1.0 to make it obvious and not confuse them with private vars. > In regard to what you say above, this does not look very logical. I think you > should give others the same level of liberty that you took. > > Bertrand Mansion > Mamasam > -- paperCrane --Justin Patrin--