On 2013-01-10 04:38, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
2. Do you honestly think that it's not incredibly common to declare constructor parameters to have the same names as the member variables that they go with? Who _doesn't_ do it that way? The only thing that would mitigate how often it would be warned about would be how many POD types in D get away without needing to define constructor, because one is implicitly declared. It's incredibly common practice in C++, Java. C#, etc. to name constructor parameters after the member variables that they go with. If anything, it's rare _not_ to do that (aside from private member variables often having stuff like _ or m_ added to them).
I do it all the time. -- /Jacob Carlborg
