Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:6258
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:40:55 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20031206174055.GA14153@prp0.prp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031203223915.02f7fb00@127.0.0.1> <200312061001.hB6A1E8M032486@mailserver3.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> <20031206161404.GA13130@prp0.prp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> <8F46C0C1-280B-11D8-B53A-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8F46C0C1-280B-11D8-B53A-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] StudlyCaps
From: swalk@prp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de (Stefan Walk)

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 11:45:12AM -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> >Why should methods differ from functions in naming? That in itself is
> >inconsistency...
> >
> >I'm in favour of naming with underscores, simply because that was the
> >PHP way until now and it helps readability a lot.
> 
> This is not really true.  In PHP4 there were very few internal classes, 
> so there was not much of a standard for naming class methods.

Again, why should method naming differ from function naming?

> It seems that most of the folks who are siding behind using underscores 
> aren't very interested in using OO code, while the people who are using 
> OOP extensively already support StudlyCaps.  My opinion may be biased 
> though.

It is. One of the purest OO languages, Ruby, uses underscores to
separate words in method names (I have to admit though that constants
are named in CamelCase usually.)

It's one of the reasons i prefer Ruby over most OO languages out
there...

> Huh? That's awful.  Who supports that sort of magic?

That's not much more magic than case-insensitive functions.

-- 
Regards,
Stefan Walk
<swalk@prp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>