Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::RFC_PackageVariableNamingConvention

Clay Loveless wrote:

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. I would also like to point out that I expressed the only requirment being consistency without a specific package since thats all that can really be required at this point, and I'll be leading a -1 charge for any rfc that tries to go further. The ultra strict coding standard is already a pain the ass, adding more requirments is just annoying.

-josh