Re: PEAR Coding Standards question
| From: | Lukas Kahwe Smith | Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:43:10 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR Coding Standards question | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-50562@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 19.08.2008, at 18:39, Kevin van Zonneveld wrote:
Hello, I have a question about the PEAR CS. Why are the coding conventions so that I'm not allowed to prefix protected methods with an underscore? e.g. I like my: 'protected function _rerouteTraffic' instead of: 'protected function rerouteTraffic' (which to me - when future referencing - makes it look like a method that can be called from outside) I would have opted for 'private function_rerouteTraffic' methods, just to make that visual distinction. But private methods give me inheritance issues when extending classes.yeah .. i agree that private is overused and that i would also like to see the underscore prefix be applied to protected. to me the underscore means "there are limits to be aware of" .. anything else is public. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith mls@pooteeweet.org