I'd have to agree. Placing variables in a namespace simply gives them context, well, alongside everything else in that namespace and what the -namespace- is used for. What this has to do with variable type recognition or variable notation escapes me. The fact that Paul is "naming his variables more descriptively" simply suggests that he's adding extra words to make the values meaningful and, in effect, creating his own notation - just using plain-text English. Didn't he say he was against -any- type of notation, in the first place? Hmm...
Hungarian notation would seem to do it more simply, more consistently and more efficiently than that, given that it's in a succinct, abbreviated form in a pre-designated position within a variable name (at the beginning). Of course, this is all conjecture since we've still not been given any examples of this superior variable naming convention that defies the use of any other notational form! Hell, if nothing else, I'm just outright curious now.... Care to share, Paul? -TJ > I can't honestly see how using namespaces to provide context helps any, or > is any different from Hungarian notation? > > Surely writing > > FileManager::length > > doesn't help clarify length's data type, and even if we suppose it was > enough, isn't prepending FileManager:: on the front as bad as a simple dw > for DWORD? _______________________________________________ msvc mailing list [email protected] See http://beginthread.com/mailman/listinfo/msvc_beginthread.com for subscription changes, and list archive.
