About conventions : "m_"

[Craig Kenisston]

I've notice that some Microsoft's code, uses the "m_" convention to refer t
private member fields
Check this
http://support.microsoft.com/default...kb;EN-US;32608
http://support.microsoft.com/default...kb;EN-US;32617
http://support.microsoft.com/default...kb;EN-US;32614

I read the dotnet guidelines, and I don't recall the "m_" convention wa
accepted

Is Microsoft violating its own code rules

Regards

[C# Learner]

Craig Kenisston <cr************@hotmail.com> wrote:

I've notice that some Microsoft's code, uses the "m_" convention to refer to
private member fields.
Check this :
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326080
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326176
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326145

I read the dotnet guidelines, and I don't recall the "m_" convention was
accepted.

Is Microsoft violating its own code rules ?
I think so.

I've seen other instances of convention violation in .NET sample code
in MSDN, too:

- Using '_' as a prefix for member variable names.
- Using capitals and underscores for constant names -
THIS_IS_A_CONSTANT.

Personally, I don't use a prefix for member variable names in C#/.NET.
I used to in Delphi/VCL and C++/MFC, though.
Regards,

[Georgescu Aurelian]

I use the "m_" just because they are private, you don't see it when you use
my class, don't you? And I did that because I need a clue to make the
difference between a parameter and private variable, and I don't like to use
"this" all the time to access the private data.

Best regards,
Relu

"Craig Kenisston" <cr************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76**********************************@microsof t.com...

I've notice that some Microsoft's code, uses the "m_" convention to refer to private member fields.
Check this :
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326080
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326176
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326145

I read the dotnet guidelines, and I don't recall the "m_" convention was
accepted.

Is Microsoft violating its own code rules ?
Regards,

just use _ as the m prefix is a waste of time, ofcourse its a member if
its in the type.
"Georgescu Aurelian" <re**@itprovision.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I use the "m_" just because they are private, you don't see it when you use my class, don't you? And I did that because I need a clue to make the
difference between a parameter and private variable, and I don't like to use "this" all the time to access the private data.

Best regards,
Relu

"Craig Kenisston" <cr************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76**********************************@microsof t.com...

I've notice that some Microsoft's code, uses the "m_" convention to

refer to

private member fields.
Check this :
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326080
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326176
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;326145

I read the dotnet guidelines, and I don't recall the "m_" convention was
accepted.

Is Microsoft violating its own code rules ?
Regards,

[Brad Williams]

I think you are right, they are inconsistent:

"Do not apply a prefix to field names or static field names." - bottom of
http://tinyurl.com/519n

Personally I think the readability gained by prefixes-on-fields is worth the
pain (if you can call typing "m_" pain). Some people put "this." on front
of all members usages, but the compiler won't tell you if you forget one.
After trying "_" for a while, I still prefer "m_", cause it stands out
better.