Posted by ELINTPimp on 09/04/07 13:55

On Sep 4, 9:26 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:11:38 -0700, Marijn
> > <marijn.huizendv...@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 */

I'm sure we all wrote code like this at one point...until we had to
rework our own code later on. You do need to be clever at times to be
a programmer, but a good programmer is always more appreciated than a
clever programmer.

[Back to original message]