Re: [OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)

Dave Newton schrieb: Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-) That about sums it up, I think. I'm assu

Re: [OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)

I agree to your observation, Dave. Point well made. I would like to get a comment from you about my claim about backwards incompatibility, though. Robert Dave Newton schrieb: Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming patt

[OT] Re: S2 2.1.8.1: Need custom decapitalization (or leniency similar to 2.1.6)

Robert Graf-Waczenski wrote: And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-) That about sums it up, I think. I'm assuming the naming conven