Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: "Jonathan Wood" <jwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:23:13 -0700
Dave,
If I had to guess why "_" is not considered standard, for reasons other
than those I've already posted in this thread, I'd say that the designers
of these standards saw a need to get rid of symbols in names.
Absolutely. I mean, with C++, all strings should be wrapped in the _T()
macro and every run-time library routine and API appears to have both an
ASCII and Unicode version. Clearly, the .NET designers wanted to clean
things up a little and, presumably, thought simple names were cleaner than
all this Hungarian notation, etc.
I think the sporadic use of "this" is simply more legible than "_", which
only has meaning when it's assigned by the author. "this", together with
lower camel case, is less likely to be misunderstood.
Yeah, I can't do it. One thing (of many things) that annoy me about .NET is
the verboseness. Having suffered from carpel-tunnel issues from time to
time, I'm not going to prefix every occurrance of a member variable with
five additional characters. I guess that is as good as any argument for me
to adopt the "_" prefix as my personal style.
--
Jonathan Wood
SoftCircuits Programming
http://www.softcircuits.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- References:
- Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: Jonathan Wood
- Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: Michael Nemtsev
- Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: Jonathan Wood
- Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- From: Dave Sexton
- Member Variables Naming Convention
- Prev by Date: Re: ArrayList without Boxing and UnBoxing
- Next by Date: Re: CreateInstance question
- Previous by thread: Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- Next by thread: Re: Member Variables Naming Convention
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading