Tim, > It doesn't "solve" any problems, as far as I can tell, but that > doesn't mean > it is not a useful convention.
My personal opinion: In general, I am wary of encoding metadata into a name, whether it is a class name or a member name. The problem with all of these schemes is keeping them in sync. The classic example, of course is a Windows message. What is the "width" of a wParam. It isn't a word - it's a long. If you rely solely on the name, you may go wrong. > > Consistency => Maintainability > Agreed. The problem here is that the convention often gets broken due to a refactor, extension or whatever. Renaming to follow the convention isn't always an option. Once that happens, the convention can actually be a trap because you rely on it and don't check anymore. Good names are important, but I would still want to understand the code I am maintaining without assuming its functions based solely on the names used. All IMHO, etc. Conor -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
