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

With a vote as close as it was: - I think a recommendation is probably more suitable than a requirement. From what I gather, The arguments go something like: a) we dont need prefix's anymore as we have modifiers now. b) protected is not really private as it can be made public by extending and changing the modifier. the debate for a) could go on for ever.. for b) - I guess it's up to the programmer to decide. - If you decide to make something protected, you are enforcing a usage requirement. In the authors view should it be allowable for an extended class to decrease the protection? - Yes: = use public syntax, No: = use private syntax. I did enjoy the phrase I saw for PHP4 the other day, it described the PPP stuff as a 'Gentlemans agreement', makes me want to join the old boys club and have a whisky :) Regards Alan 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. So, would PHPUnit2 be forced to break BC and prefix all protected members with '_'? Hans

-- Can you help out? Need Consulting Services or Know of a Job? http://www.akbkhome.com