I wish that Scott would add functions that allow to list array vars -- as I noticed earlier, they are omitted from normal variable lists (which I see now making sense).
I normally use g in front of globals and p for parameter names. However, in a large multistack project, I found that prefixing them with "xxxx$" works better (xxx is the name of the stack). Since some of the parallel stacks in this project have similar functionality, this allows me to have the same var name (to denote the same type of content) but still avoid namespace conflicts. In parallel, I use "xxx." for names of local vars. Furthermore, since these stacks share some handlers through "stacksinuse", I use similar notation for handler names -- those intended for global use start with "xxxx$" and those for local use start with "xxxx."
I guess the point is that it is good to have a clear and consitent naming style, although no one set of guidelines can work for all cases. However, what you propose will be a good starting point for many people.
Robert
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Gaskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 January 2003 10:13 To: MetaCard List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: scripting style issueAs documented in the Script Style Guide at <http://www.fourthworld.com/embassy/articles/scriptstyle.html> , I'm fairly OCD when it comes to variable names, having adopted the sort of Hungarian-notation-lite that makes dissecting code just a little easier. There's an item not addressed in that document that's becoming an ever-bigger part of my scripting: arrays. It's useful to denote arrays distinctly because they require different syntax from other variable types. For example, you can get the value of an arrany element, but you can't get a displayable string from the array itself. For a long time I just added the word "Array" to the end of a variable name as a reminder, like "gMyOpenWindowsArray". As I use arrays more and more, I simply don't want to type that much, any more than I would type "globalMyOpenWindows" In recent weeks I've started adding an "a" after the type specifier as a shorter, arguably clearer, notation: string form: gMyOpenWindows array form: gaMyOpenWindows With script-locals being: string form: sMyOpenWindows array form: saMyOpenWindows Parameters: string form: pMyOpenWindows array form: paMyOpenWindows ...etc. While I've enjoyed this in my own scripting, I recognize there's a fine line between adding specificity and making things cumbersome. So three questions: 1. Does this convention seem useful? Specifically, should I bother adding it to the Script Style Guide? 2. How do you denote arrays? 3. Is this boring? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge 2.1: Publish any database on any site ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc
_______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
