I suspect that knowing what things were passed into a method or function is something that can be divined via static analysis.
Aren't there tools for our (admittedly varied) editors / IDEs to make the readability that people are getting from aFoo readily available, but that don't also require us to pack it into the actual name of the variable? On 07/07/2015 11:44 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/7/15 11:36 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >> FWIW, I did a quick poll of the people in our Gfx daily. Here are the >> results: > > To add some more split opinions to the situation, I rather like the > aArgument form precisely because it makes it easier to trace dataflow. > Though the fact that some functions assign to the aArgument does make it > harder. > > On the other hand, the last time we had this conversation (it just keeps > happening, doesn't it?) roc pointed out that the aFoo convention makes > it harder to refactor things into helper functions (or out of them): > suddenly something that was a function local becomes an argument to the > helper, and you have to rename it throughout the helper function body. I > seem to recall that he also posited that this makes us less willing to > refactor things into smaller functions than we should be. I don't have > a good counterargument for this; I think he's right about this drawback > of the aFoo convention. > > -Boris > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
