On 4/15/05, Martin Kal�n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jakob Braeuchi wrote: > > 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. > > You are right, I didn't think about the encapsulation issue. > > However, I think it is more of a Java de-facto standard to name getters > and setters according to the members name. At least with IntelliJ IDEA > refactoring tools you can then rename getters/setters and all callers of > those automagically when you rename a memeber variable (which is not > possible for "protected String m_foo;" vs "public String getFoo();"). > > But I don't have a huge issue with "m_" prefixes for members and will > happily use whatever the majority decides on. :-)
Well I do, at least with the 'm' because it doesn't mean anything in Java as opposed to C++ where you'd also have g_ for global variables (outside of classes). Personally I use a similar naming standard (from my C++ and C# 'roots') which uses a simple underscore. In Eclipse, you can specify suffixes (e.g. 'm_' or '_') that Eclipse automatically recognizes when generating accessors and while refactoring. Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
