Re: PEAR Coding Standards question

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Chuck Burgess <demon.gene@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Chuck Burgess <demon.gene@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Kevin van Zonneveld < >> kevin@vanzonneveld.net> wrote: >> >>> Why are the coding conventions so that I'm not allowed to prefix >>> protected methods with an underscore? >>> >> >> The decision on that was made on this old RFC [1]. Perhaps we should >> revisit it with a fresh discussion? >> -- >> CRB >> >> [1] - http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=99 >> > > > The most helpful comment on that RFC that helps me understand the overall > decision against underscores was from Justin -- "As protected members may be > declared public in extending classes, it makes sense to me to not force > protected members to be prefixed." Wow, a true moment of clarity. Makes perfect sense to me. :)