What do you think?

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Tim Craig wrote:

The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.

Does that qualify as meta-evolution? :)

-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören

[Mike Dimmick]

Various C++ authors suggest using a trailing underscore for a member variable, but that's even worse, IMO - especially when it's a pointer, since you have to release Shift in order to dereference (to type the '-' of ->).

Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder

[beatle11]

Well I like using some prefix. either 'm_' or just the '_'. With C++ for example you can use the 'this' keyword to differentiate but i find it more annoying and confusing to read code this way as I'm sure many programmers do.

[Claus Brinch Jensen]

Personally I love using the '_' prefix. It tells you instantly that you are dealing with a private member variable and it doesn't decrease readability at all, IMO. In fact, I have always preferred lower-case underscored names over camelBack for readability as it resembles normal text more closely. In addition it has been a well founded convention for many years to prefix proprietary/private/non-standard data/functions with an underscore, and I think private member variables fit that category perfectly. Claus

[Phil Harding]

Rocky Moore wrote:

Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members

Firmly in the "m_" camp for class attributes (member variables is sooo last season) :)

Phil Harding.
myBlog [^] | mySite [^]

[machowski lukasz]

i hate prefix "_", because code is not intuitive and reading this is very uncomfortable. I'm programing in c#. Regards Łukasz

[Jon W]

I Like them! :rose: Why? I'm a VB.NET developer... to write none language dependent code is like coding to interfaces instead of implementations ;P What do I mean? Well to easily convert / write / use code from BOTH c# and VB.Net "_" simplifies a great bit... Mainly because vb.net is not case sensitive. I find the "_" char the least disturbing in reading / skimming through code. The m_ prefix i dislike the m_ prefix as I consider it outdated; as far as I know the m stands for member, and if I want to now a class member I take a look in the Object browser, or use the "Me" (this in c#) ex: Me._myFieldName therefore in my opinion -> m_ adds "nothing". As the previous post states, the _ is used for private members and therefore encapsulated by the class and you work with the public properties / methods instead i.o.w not that big of a problem (in my humble opinion) in contrast to language independence.

[David Veeneman]

I hated it at first, but got used to it. I use 'm_' for member variables, and 'p_' for property variables. I still hate the underscore by itself, like '_this'.

David Veeneman www.veeneman.com

[realJSOP]

I'm not missing. I am working on a series of articles for CP since all the local roads are closed and I can't get to work. :) I only prefix compiler definitions with underscores, like so:

#define _USE_THIS_MSG_ WM_APP+1

I don't prefix variables with underscores, and don't embed variable names with underscores beyond the gratuitous "m_".

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

[Aaron VanWieren]

Mark Nischalke wrote:

Because we've always done it that way

Oh no, the dreaded "We have always done it that way"!!! :-D

[Aaron VanWieren]

Mohamed A. Meligy wrote:

class library developer guidance.

Just curious, but do you have a link for this. Whenever I look for this, I find a gazillion different styles being used in Microsoft example code.

[neffc]

I am very agreeable with the underscore since it takes advantage of Intellisense for seeing my private/protected fields quickly. It should not matter what you name a field because it should always be accessed through a property. What I would like to hear some opinions on is the naming of User Interface controls such that I don't want my default event handlers looking really crazy i.e. do you: btnValidate buttonValidate validateButton (something else) cneff78

[lotuspro]

I appear to be in the minority here but I *always* use the underscore to prefix private members. I do this for 2 reasons: 1.) As noted by another commentor, I consider the m_ wholly antiquated and sorely reminiscent of old school VB 2.) whenever I write a new class, especially in something like a data layer, I name my members the same as my field names in my database, but of course I have Properties also and then should also have the same name, so I end up with a simple _fieldName notation. It makes for eacy copy & paste. I'm right, that is all ;)

[mc42]

No, it's not part of Hungarian notation. Hungarian notation was a programming practice that prefixed variables with the type (for example, iLoopCounter, dSalary, etc). The m_ or just plain _ prefix is a method to be able to use a good name in the class and as parameters. class myClass { string _name; public bool myFunction(string name) { _name = name; } } as an example. I think the m_ came into play when class global variables were directly accessable as it made it easier to read (nameClass.m_name is easier than nameClass._name), but with the shift to treating local variables as private and providing accessors, the m_ isn't as necessary and using the _ prefix preserves the "good" names and makes it easier to translate code between languages that are/are not case sensitive.

[eddlsda]

Both Hungarian and use of underscores have their roots in C espeically those of us that lived in a flavor of unix. Amongst the development community I worked with in the late 80s, we used underscores to avoid name collisions between file scope and local variables. We used Hungarian notation to add type and pointer details to variables especially those defined as extern. With the advent of Object-Oriented programming and the concept of encapsulation, the need to know the type essentially became less useful and besides, as those that lived through maintenance of such code, misleading or erronous. From what I have seen, the use of underscores or prefix styles is usually done to avoid name collisions between class field/member declarations and parameter names that might be used in methods or constructor parameter lists. My opinion is that there are better means to do this by either avoiding the collision or use of a qualifying this. to scope to the correct member. Hence, I do not find use of prefix or underscores useful but can live with them if used consistently.

Don Eddleman Principal Enterprise Architect Healthways

[BC3Tech]

i vote m_ here.

[Stick]

Actually better to use IN and OUT as you will find MS doing. Forgot the techie name for this syntax in signatures, but the only reason MS is doing it is they are going for interoperability with .NET languages.

[drdavef]

I used the m prefix when using VB6. Now with VS2005, I much prefer the _ and have also stoped using str, int, prefixes also. Much more like the Java mode for naming object. David

[ednrgc]

I usually name the private member in lowercase, and the Properties to access them in CamelCase.

[R Ziak]

Search MSDN for naming conventions.