On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Kean <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have to > refactor code all > the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the first time.
I don't understand this. Why make it like some sort of joke that I'm somehow smart enough to get it right. Or that it's something unachievable or ridiculous. This attitude doesn't make sense to me. I'm no smarter than anyone else, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to choose a good name for something. > When you think about it, it's really just a nature extension to typeof. We > don't hard code type > names, so why hard code member names? To be honest, I rarely find myself writing these types of names in strings anyway. It's almost always in the markup, and sometimes it isn't, but in that case I suppose I wouldn't be particularly upset if it was done in the fashion you've shown, but I just wouldn't be concerned either way. I don't think it's particularly stupid anymore, just not particularly neccessary. I don't really have strong feelings about it. -- silky http://www.programmingbranch.com/
