On 3/7/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/7/06, Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/7/06, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In our product code bases, we use the "this.foo()" convention. The > > > argument being, that in object oriented programming, a message is sent > > > to an object, always. > > > > > > How does the list feel about cleaning up foo()'s to this.foo()'s? > > > > > > I am willing to do this clean up, actually, I'll let Eclipse do it ;) > > > > > > Or, we can leave it all as is, with some classes doing it one way and > > > others the other way. > > > > My position is that as you're working on a chunk of code, clean it up > > to whatever you like but DO NOT go changing code just for cosmetic > > sake. > > > > Phil says +1 to the remark above. Of course you could tell it is Phil > speaking by the from header and the sig below ;-) > > Phil
Seriously, Craig makes an important point as does Gary (about the code being public). I should not have responded categorically. I personally do not agree in this case, but agree that style changes are OK if community (meaning those actually maintaining the code base) agree. Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
