Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I think the same goes for putting "m" or "g" or whatever in for member or 
>> global variables, etc.
> 
>   Why? When I started using those, my own code became much easier to
> understand to me months later. When I have code along the lines of:
> 
>     void Foo::doSomething()
>     {
>         mCounter += someValue;
>     }

Oh, also, I'd write this as
   this.counter += someValue;

or
   Foo::Counter += someValue;

if I thought it needed disambiguation at a particular point.

I often see people do
   void SetStuff(int xxx, int yyy, char* zzz)
   {
      mXxx = xxx;
      mYyy = yyy;
      mZzz = zzz;
   }
where I would either do
   this.xxx =xxx;
or I'd give the arguments different names
   void SetStuff(int newXxx, int newYyy)
   {
     xxx = newXxx;
     yyy = newYyy;
   }

I suggested that to someone who was in the habit of putting m_ and g_ and 
such on the fronts of variables, and he started naming every argument with 
the word "new" on the front.  I don't think he got what I was saying.

The point is to give every variable, even arguments and autos, a name that 
indicates their function. Then I almost never need disambiguation.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message