Re: PEAR Coding Standards question
| From: | Joshua Eichorn | Date: | Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:02:17 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR Coding Standards question | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-50578@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Chuck Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Kevin van Zonneveld < kevin@vanzonneveld.net> wrote:-joshMy 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 Discussing how code looks is the ultimate bike shedding project (I like my sheds red btw). If someone has specific changes they like send a proposal to someone on the pear group we will bring it up at the meeting. Otherwise feel free to discuss something useful like what package you are interested in working on for PEAR2. PHP 5.3 should be out in a couple more months.