> > Does someone sees a problem if an optional app (not the core) uses its > own coding convention ? > > We (the claroline team) are thinking to follow this convention for > naming the classes : > http://groups.google.com/group/php-standards/web/psr-0-final-proposal > except for the ones loaded by the framework (Notably the data manager, > the manager and the components) > > > Actually I do not understand the reason for all the > CamelCase-to-underdscore mechanism so if someone can enlight me on this > subject it would be greatly appreciated.
Could you detail "all the CamelCase-to-underdscore mechanism" so that I understand it better? In general terms, in the 1.8 branch, we decided to use underscore (also called minor camelcase) because a study (I don't have the reference but I know it was around 2004) demonstrated that, for non English-natural-speakers, it was far easier to_read_text_separated_by_underscores than ToReadTextUsingMajorCamelCase. The example above kind of proves the point without the need for the study (I don't think any of us is a natural English speaker). Wanting to have the major possible easiness at entry point for developers, we decided (I'm not talking about the current team) to go for "lower" camel_case and we've stuck to this since then. I'm not sure these are still the conventions in 2.0, but I'd follow whatever is set as a convention right now and I agree with Hans that it would be a really bad idea, although technically I wouldn't put it as an exclusion condition to your participation in Chamilo 2. Yannick _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.chamilo.org http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev
