hi all,
i'd prefer the Foo/FooImpl naming standard for interfaces.
yes, the m_fields were introduced by me.
the company i work for uses this standard and when i first saw it, i found it totally useless. i'm an old smalltalker and was used to access all instVars by getters and setters, so i didn't care about the name of the instVar itself. in java code i found that most instVars were accessed directly, and sometimes even temVars or parameters had the same name as the instVars. so after all the m_ prefix looked quite useful, because it let's me spot the access to instVars quickly.
jakob
Martin Kal�n schrieb:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
These are nits, and we can obviously work with whatever form is used (heck we have lots of code of the form m_thingie for instance vars) and having an expected standard is a Good Thing. I just don't like those particular idioms.
Right you are, these m_someField (and for that matter _someField) could be removed as well. But they are not visible to the user, so we can handle them as we go, so to speak.
+1 -- let's stop playing C++ with those fields. :-)
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
