I only for myself: I was the first one replying your email of "General inclinations regarding prefixing non-public members?" with "No underscore". But I did not participate your poll for I really don't understand your intention of creating a poll after you had that email and so many people already responded.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > -- Саша Стаменковић <[email protected]> wrote > (on Friday, 13 August 2010, 10:14 AM +0200): > > Can you tell us current score? :) > > There are currently 381 responses: > > * 57% vote "Yes" (to remove the underscores) > * 38% vote "No" (to retain underscores) > * 4% vote "No opinion" > > What has been interesting is that the percentages have remained > consistent from the outset -- I expected more deviation. What is also > interesting is that there is no real clear majority. Typically, I like > to see a 2/3 vote to feel comfortable that the change is widely > accepted, but that is not the case at this time. > > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > ZF Coding Standards are based on PEAR's CS. That standard was developed > > first by Horde, then expanded by PEAR, during the PHP 4 lifecycle. PHP 4 > > had no concept of visibility in its object model; to provide some > > pseudo-visibility, PEAR CS mandated that members considered non-public > > should be prefixed with an underscore. > > > > With the advent of PHP 5, PHP's object model received visibility > > operators in the form of private, protected, and public. Applying PEAR > > CS to PHP 5 code meant that if you marked a member as private or > > protected, you would also prefix with the underscore. Many have felt > > this is redundant, and also that it makes refactoring more difficult > > (changes in visibility often mean renaming the members). Proponents of > > the standard, however, argue that the leading underscore leads to easier > > maintenance of the code -- you know immediately what the visibility of > > the member you're dealing with is just by looking at it. > > > > PEAR2 has decided to eschew the underscore prefix: > > > > http://wiki.pear.php.net/index.php/MeetingMinutes20080824# > > Underscore_prefix_on_private_.28protected.3F.29 > > > > Basically, this rule is no longer required (as it was in PEAR1), though > > developers may choose to use them. > > > > What is YOUR opinion? Should the underscore be dropped in ZF2? > > Please vote! > > > > http://is.gd/eeA6f > > > > Please do _not_ reply to this thread -- the arguments for and against > > are well known at this time -- we're simply trying to decide on whether > > or not to amend the coding standards for ZF2. > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > > Project Lead | [email protected] > > Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ > > PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc > > > > > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > Project Lead | [email protected] > Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ > PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc -- Dev Lead for Xoops Engine Internet Application R&D @PerfectWorld
