"Daniel T." <postmaster@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-FB165D.22233413012004@news06.east.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
sandeep6699@yahoo.com (Sandeep Sharma) wrote:
>[color=green]
> > For many years I have been following the convention of naming all
> > class attributes with a leading underscore. This enables me to
> > quickly identify the class attributes when I encounter them in the
> > source code. Even the GoF book follows this convention, although it's
> > true that the GoF book is not an authoritative source for coding
> > guidelines.
> >
> > Recently a colleague remarked that using a leading underscore is a bad
> > programming practice that should be avoided at all costs. According
> > to her this has to do with the fact that the compiler naming mangling
> > procedure also sticks leading underscores and therefore using
> > underscores in the source code makes the job of following the
> > post-processed source code (should there ever be a need) very
> > difficult.[/color]
>
> The point here is to try to convey a certian piece of information, that
> the variable in question is a member-variable. I see no reason to use
> two characters to convey that information when one will do, so using
> underscore + lower case (_variable) or 'm' + upper case (mVariable) both
> seem like good options, but combining them into 'm_' seems like a waste.
>
> Having a trailing underscore, (or any sort of trailing character) is
> hard to parse for me. Maybe I'm too old school.
>
> But why do we have to convey this particular piece of information? If
> the variable is local, then it will be defined right there in the
> function and will be obvious. If the variable is global... Well globals
> are quite frowned upon aren't they? Maybe it's the global that needs
> some special sort of code. Something to think about.[/color]
What about file static/unnamed namespace?
I like to use s_ for these and I use them a lot.
I am undecided about class static - where possible I prefer to use file
static instead but where
not I use a prefix - I just can't decide whether to use m_,s_ or something
else.
[color=blue]
>
> How about this, quite off the wall but interesting idea. Variables that
> have a scope smaller than a function should be 1-2 characters long,
> varibles with function scope should be 3-4 characters long, variables
> with class scope should be 5-6 characters long, variables with file
> scope 7-8 chars and variables with multiple file scope should be greater
> than 8 characters. Just an idea...[/color]
variable names should always describe what they are.
