|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 09/04/07 13:26
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:11:38 -0700, Marijn
> <marijn.huizendveld@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 sep, 10:02, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>> By the way, you shouldn't name your functions with a double-underscore.
>>> Functions that start with a double-underscore are reserved for future use
>>> as "magic" functions (e.g. __construct, __call, __get, __autoload, etc).
>>>
>> I know it is for reserverd magic functions BUT this way i serarate
>> public (no underscore) from (protected one underscore) from (private
>> (two underscores)
>>
>> I really prefer a difference in my code for private and protected
>> methods.
>>
>> Plus everybody with a bit of experience knows that ther is __call,
>> __autoload, __desctruct ...etc.
>
> So you think it's ok to mix YOUR functions with reserved functions
> just so your functions look different?
>
> how about pu_ pv_ and pr_ (or no for public, pv for private and pr
> for protected).
>
> Of course, it's your coding skills that'd be called into question if
> someone who knew better looked at it so that's up to you.
anyone who looks into old Unix source code will find huge areas of code
written by someone who hated writing english, and appeared to have
confused even themselves.
My favorite comment is an I have used it myself
/* If you can't understand the next bit, leave it alone. Trust me it
just WORKS, No I am not sure why, either */
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|