# Fwd: CS - Thread: https://externals.io/message/7204 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/7204 - Started by Andi Gutmans on 2004-01-20T22:34:52+00:00 - Messages: 6 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #7204 — Andi Gutmans — 2004-01-20T22:34:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7204 >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:13:06 +0100 >To: andi@php.net >Subject: CS > >Hi, > >there still seems to be confusion about the CS for OO code and since >Derick reverted the studlyCaps guidelines there is nothing in the CS style. > >Could you revert the last commit back to version 1.26? Guys, I remember we agreed that OO code will have studlyCaps. I don't want to have this long thread again (I was actually initially opposed but got convinced/gave in). As I don't have the time right now nor the setup, can someone please revert and put the studlyCaps guidelines for OO extensions back into the Code Guidelines? Andi --- ## #7213 — Sascha Schumann — 2004-01-21T07:21:30+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7213 · In reply to: #7204 > I remember we agreed that OO code will have studlyCaps. I don't want to > have this long thread again (I was actually initially opposed but got > convinced/gave in). You don't want a long thread? Then don't mention the topic. > As I don't have the time right now nor the setup, can someone please revert > and put the studlyCaps guidelines for OO extensions back into the Code > Guidelines? Nay. Derick was right about removing that section. - Sascha --- ## #7214 — Andi Gutmans — 2004-01-21T07:28:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7214 · In reply to: #7204 At 08:21 AM 1/21/2004 +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > […] > > You don't want a long thread? Then don't mention the topic. I don't want *another* long thread because we came to agreement on the previous one. If you don't like the result that's your problem. > > […] > > Nay. Derick was right about removing that section. *see above*. Derick did this without consultation and even if you agree or don't agree with it, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. Andi --- ## #7215 — Sascha Schumann — 2004-01-21T07:38:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7215 · In reply to: #7214 > At 08:21 AM 1/21/2004 +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > […] > > I don't want *another* long thread because we came to agreement on the > previous one. If you don't like the result that's your problem. Huh? There certainly was no agreement. The thread basically closed with you declaring that you changed your opinion. But you are not the judge (nor am I). No agreement in sight. - Sascha --- ## #7216 — Marcus Boerger — 2004-01-21T07:42:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7216 · In reply to: #7213 Hello Sascha, Wednesday, January 21, 2004, 8:21:30 AM, you wrote: > > […] > You don't want a long thread? Then don't mention the topic. > > […] > Nay. Derick was right about removing that section. Yesturday we had an irc discussion about this issue too. And we came to the conclusion once again that all oo guys wnat it and only a few non oo guys don't want it. Besides such things it was meant to make php objects consistent intheir naming scheme and consisten with the rest of the oo world too. The main point against it was that we couldn't keep the original writing in error messages, reflection and such. Now we can and all oo extensions follow studlyCaps i put it back. Thanks Andi for noticing it once again. -- Best regards, Marcus mailto:helly@php.net --- ## #7253 — Derick Rethans — 2004-01-21T18:08:08+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/7204#7253 · In reply to: #7214 > *see above*. Derick did this without consultation and even if you agree or > don't agree with it, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. I added it without consultation too, that was wrong, so I corrected it :) Derick