Re: Re: [PEPr] -1 for Tools and Utilities::CodeGen_MySQL_UDF

Hi. Although I have no karma here, I would like to raise a small point. Initially, my reaction to PHP5's PPP abilities made me think that underscore prefixing could be abandoned, at least for protected members. After much use of PHP5's dynamic __get/__set to automate property getters and setters, I wonder if that is entirely a good idea. In short, with __get/__set a virtual property can be exposed as public but be based on a private *or* protected underlying member. Therefore, the name of the underlying member can not be same as the name of the exposed virtual property since in that case, __get/__set would no longer be visible. That's not a problem for private members since they are still prefixed, but it is a problem for protected members if they are not prefixed. I'm not sure it sould be mandatory as it seems to only trip on this sort of case. In the long run, it may be more prudent to invent a new prefix for members that are used to implement virtual properties (eg: _v_). Best regards and apologies if I am intruding, boots On 9/2/05, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote: > > Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > > >> 2) Private members are not prefixed with _ > > > > > > does this rule still apply to 5.0 code? > > (all members are now declared "protected" instead of "var") > > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=99 > > maybe this should be added to the CS? > > regards, > Lukas > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >