Re: PEAR Coding Standards question
| From: | Chuck Burgess | Date: | Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:25:12 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR Coding Standards question | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-50569@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Kevin van Zonneveld <
kevin@vanzonneveld.net> wrote:
> My argument would not be to force the prefixing of protected members.
> But to allow it.
>
Ahh, that is indeed a key difference. I'm guessing at least half the
readers assumed "force" while the other half assumed "allowed". Funny how
sometimes the two sides of a discussion can both be debating the wrong
points :P
Given that I've never actually looked for such prefixing to tell me scope,
I'm fine with the "allowed" underscores... but if it's a "forced"
thing, I'd
lean away from underscores.
Heh, so now the topic is what's the *scope* of the CS rule itself :P
--
CRB