Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::RFC_PackageVariableNamingConvention

Clay Loveless wrote:

On 8/4/05 12:50 PM Pacific Time, Joe Stump (joe@joestump.net) wrote:

/me whips out is "The Elements of Java Style" and finds that humpBack is the preferred naming scheme for Java. Josh has made the strongest argument, IMO, for humpBack (or at the very least "keep all your variables the same").

I understand that's what Java does, but if I wanted to be writing Java code, I would be. PHP != Java, and I think the language (and PEAR) is mature enough for decisions to be made on this topic without concerning ourselves too much with what the big kids are doing. Its not just Java, and being different just for the sake of being different, and different from our method names is a large internal inconsitency.

What's interesting to me is that you (and others) are expressing a lot of concern for following the preferred naming scheme for Java variables, yet few have shown that concern for following the preferred naming scheme for PEAR variables ... Despite the fact that we're talking about writing PEAR packages for the PEAR project. So what does PEAR do? Who cares what anyone else does. Lots of packages use either way as was shown by the review posted an hour ago, I don't see what one person choose when deciding to write PEAR::DB has to do with the standard any more then me choosing all camel case for HTML_AJAX.

The PEAR foundation classes use lowercase_and_underscore, and IMHO other packages (whether they are popular or not) should have followed that example wherever the CS guide was vague. Thats one opinion and the other is that whereever the cd guide is vague you can do what you want as long as your internally consistent.

-josh

-Clay