+1 to all three points. But I'll never define a variable called blockProgressionDimension! That's always going to be bpd for me, but then ipd and bpd are so omnipresent so it shouldn't be a problem. Exceptions prove the rule, don't they? :-)
On 09.09.2005 01:55:06 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Hi devs, > while examining the Checkstyle and JavaDoc complaints I > got a few more questions about the FOP style: > 1. There is still quite a bit of hungarian notation here and > there. Hungarian notation generally sucks unless it is > consistently applied. Furthermore, it is systems hungarian > (see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html), > which unconditionally sucks. > And yes, we do already have an "int bFooFlag". > I'd like to exterminate this. > 2. There are two different styles for constructors and setters > in use: > Constructor(int foo) { > this.foo=foo > } > and > Constructor(int f) { > foo=f > } > We should standardize on one form. I'd like the first because > the second may have the undesirable effect of using unintuitive > abbreviations or alternative names for the parameter. > I told Checkstyle laready to accept the first form (there are > *lots* of warnings about it). Unfortunately, Checkstyle can't yet > enforce it. > 3. We have too much weird abbreviations everywhere. In particular, > usage of abbreviations is wildly inconsistent. I'd like to > remind everyone that using proper words to compose identifiers > has advantages. With the autocompletion features of modern IDEs, > long identifiers shouldn't impair typing too much. > I'll probably expand randomly choosen names in the future, which > may include class names. Tell me now if you don't like this. > > Regards > J.Pietschmann Jeremias Maerki
