Declaring _x as private, __y as public.

[hopscc]

> How is the flexibility and accommodation of being able name a public...
Item numbered 2a previously... and 5 previously

Whats good and necessary is in the eye of the user/group/organisation/culture/situation and its not necessarily always aligned with anyones
midday notions of good/best/clear/consistent practise.

>Why would anyone deliberately make a coding standard that directly contradicts how everything is already done in the language
Because they're using (the code std) from another language,
Because they're only using cobra peripherally and minimally, and thats what they're used to
Because thats what the corporate std doc sez to do....
Because thats what they've always done and it works well enough
.. and I'm not inventing any of those ...

> I dont buy .. mess with accessibility dcl ... and not rename everything each time
Good for you, that situation was from experience as well.

( the class naming thing is a logical follow on from enforcing nomenclature on members.... consistent if nothing else)

> consistency and the compiler doing as much as possible to make code consistent and help a developer reading code to understand it, and yes - without limiting unreasonably what is possible
The only thing I'd change here is to remove the word 'unreasonably'
Make it easy to do the 'right' thing, allow everything wrongheaded though you think it might be...
( the follow on debate is about what value 'everything' is)


>not advocating "lock everything down so there are no choices in anything
wrt member naming
I've misunderstood then - I thought you were advocating a name form bound to accessibility and disallowing any deviancy (first post this discussion)
If thats not the case then I have no disagreement

Unfortunately as well as the multideveloper flexibility desired experience I've also been on the end of trying to do something a little bit different than your language implementation thought
should be reasonable or allowable and the immense frustration of the contortions around that....
....
Whatever... moving on.

[nevdelap]

Even if I'm not compelled there are reasons why some things are considered 'wrongheaded' enough to not allow them, it's a matter of degree which ones you go with, and perhaps everyone else is compelled, and I lean towards quality perhaps too zealously. So we disgree, no problem. I'm not making the call anyway so you don't have to convince me.

So yes, lets move on! What Chuck and you and everyone else here are doing totally rocks! and i don't want to get stuck on this. I appreciate everything you're doing and don't want to annoy anyone.

[Charles]

In your message just above, did you really mean "x as public"?

In any case, as a forum admin, I was able to edit the subject.

[nevdelap]

I just meant declaring things contrary to the implied meaning of the _ or __ and thereby defeating that implied meaning that Cobra gives them.

And that deliberately circumventing that meaning should be discouraged, I think disallowed, and maybe allowed by a directive or option that says 'let me do it anyway' so that if someone is in some situation where they really, really need to have __y as public they can without pain, but have to specifically think about it and make that decision rather than just doing it willy nilly.

But, I KNOW that even if anyone agreed with me it would be way low on any priority list.

[Charles]

Sorry I screwed up and said "in the message just above" when in fact there were 2 pages of messages and I missed that. The current phpBB layout we use does not make it as clear as it should when there is a second page and others have had this problem on occasion as well.