On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:02:42 +0200 Murray Cumming <[email protected]> wrote:
> I appreciate that, as I once strongly believed in hungarian notation. I > don't any more, though I can't explain why. I really don't like the hungarian notation. Thinking about this further, using auto may make people use hungarian notation again, because the type is not so visible anymore. They'll want to embed it in the variable name instead (for clarity or whatever). > I guess it would be enough to always use meaningful variable names. "w" > is a crappy variable name anyway. Sure, but then again, the name of the variable shouldn't exactly reflect its type either (otherwise, we'll be back to the (imho, awful) hungarian notation). So, without auto, the questions like "is it a RefPtr to Gtk::UIManager" or "is it a pointer to Gtk::UIManager" or "is it a Gtk::UIManager object" are easily answered. With auto, I'm not so sure. Remember that we're talking about people who are probably learning gtkmm or its components (otherwise, they wouldn't be looking at examples in the first place). This all relates to the documentation code. The library and application code is, of course, a completely different matter. Thanks, Alexander _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
