Re: StudlyCaps

php.internals

Marc Dembogurski

22 years ago
Cristiano Duarte wrote:
>IMHO we shouldn't have exceptions. If the DOM
extension (and many others)
>must use StudlyCaps (because of W3C specifications),
all OO-based extension or
>code should use too. >We can live with a CS for procedural and other CS for
OOP.
>Cristiano Duarte
Yes, Look at what Cristiano and other people saying: "IMHO we shouldn't have EXCEPTIONS".... Exceptions are consistent ???? I have the answer: NO!!!! As I said before, I prefer to use underscores, but in this case, with PEAR Using caps and other extensions will use caps, so why turn it into a mess?????? I know I am not a core developer, but as an OLD analyst I can say that underscores for OO are the wrong choice now. Using caps for OO code and underscores for procedural will make things easier in the future.... Think about it. Regards __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

Andi Gutmans

22 years ago
Hi guys, I'd like to put an end to this thread. Taking into account everyone's opinion I think the best solution is to go for StudlyCaps with OOP code. Main reasons: a) PEAR. b) Interface with other OO models. c) Status quo today with iterator and array access interfaces. I don't think it's such a big deal, and although I slightly preferred underscores, I think it's the best to leave this issue go and finalize on StudlyCaps. As internals@ was pretty much split on this (probably with a slight advantage to StudlyCaps) I think it's the right way to go or we'll never get any closure. Having this rule will give us consistency across PEAR and PHP. On another subject, Beta 3 is extremely close. I am just waiting for a few engine bugs to be nuked so please commit your final patches. Thanks, Andi

Michael Walter

22 years ago
> with a slight advantage to StudlyCaps) I think it's the right way to go > [..] or we'll never get any closure. [..]
You got closures for me? Lexical ones? Wheeeeee ;) Cheers, Michael