Re: underscore prefix
From: Rakesh Rajan (RakeshRajan_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 07/05/04
- Next message: ik: "SQL Server 2005 Express Beta messes up your SQL Server 2000, BEWARE"
- Previous message: Rakesh Rajan: "RE: 'System.Web' (are you missing an assembly reference?)"
- In reply to: Scott Allen: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Next in thread: Mike: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:49:01 -0700
Hmm...I have always been in the opinion that whenever we have an exposed member like a public variable or property etc, we should avoid Hungarian Notation and prefixes of any type. But for private entities, I would use m_ or a prefix...
-- Rakesh Rajan "Scott Allen" wrote: > I think the guidlines actually discourage use of m_ when it says "Do > not apply a prefix to field names or static field names." > > -- > Scott > http://www.OdeToCode.com > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:40:41 +0300, "Tamir Khason" > <tamir-NOSPAM@tcon-NOSPAM.co.il> wrote: > > >This is olb naming convention for private variables. In new MS naming > >convention you should use m_ as prefix for private members > >More information can be found here > >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpgenref/html/cpconnamingguidelines.asp > >or use FxCop to validate > >http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/ > >
- Next message: ik: "SQL Server 2005 Express Beta messes up your SQL Server 2000, BEWARE"
- Previous message: Rakesh Rajan: "RE: 'System.Web' (are you missing an assembly reference?)"
- In reply to: Scott Allen: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Next in thread: Mike: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: underscore prefix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|