Re: Naming convensions

Clay Loveless wrote:

On 8/4/05 8:24 AM Pacific Time, Stoyan Stefanov (ssttoo@gmail.com) wrote:

It looks like the more recent packages tend towards using $someVars. So I guess the manual can state something like: "While using $some_vars used to acceptable, it's now discouraged in favor of $someVars. Newly created packages MUST use $someVars in order to be considered. This applies to all variables regardless of their scope."

But that is the point I'm making -- it is NOT discouraged. There's nothing in the documentation that discourages it. The packages who have chosen $someVar as public variables have simply not looked to packages that came before them for the example/precendent that had been set. That is hardly a recommendation. Seems like this needs to either get a directive from PEAR Group, or a vote via PEPr.

Given the history of the packages and factoring BC in, we're strapped no matter what. The only thing to be done is damage control for future and currently none-stable packages. At least in-package consistency should be mandatory, regardless of properies' visibility IMO. One more point to consider in that case is also indexes in $options arrays, which is widely used in PEAR packages. Anyway, no matter which naming convention is agreed on, we can only make it a strong recommendation, with breaking of the rule only for extremely good reasons. -Philippe