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

Hi Alan: On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 08:59:07AM +0800, Alan Knowles wrote: > With a vote as close as it was: - I think a recommendation is probably > more suitable than a requirement. I really think it needs to be required in order to preserve uniformity. I can live with the results of the vote. It's not that big a deal. > the debate for a) could go on for ever.. These threads are the case in point, eh? :) > 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. Very good point. > 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 :) As long as the club has good beer too, I'm in. --Dan -- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409