What do you think?

[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.

[MSBassSinger]

>Do you use/like the "_" to prefix private members? My habit is to use m_ for module level variables. I never make them public. If I want to expose its value, I use a property to get or set it. I use no prefix for variables whose scope is within the method. I also use a 3 letter prefix for the data type, e.g. strName, m_lngCount, etc. It is not the only way, but it is a way I like, it is readable, and I see no reason to change. I never saw a reason to simply use a "_". I remember the days when processor cycles and memory (RAM and disk) were at such a premium that code was cryptic. Those days have been gone for decades, so I saw no reason not to use more human readable names. JD Waleska, GA

[DavidNohejl]

We call' em fields.

---

"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus

[Phil Harding]

dnh wrote:

We call' em fields

Luddite :)

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

[Member 96]

It took me a *long* time to break that habit when I moved to c#.

[sstring]

For those who are interested, I created a poll to settle this once and for all (:laugh:). Variable Naming Conventions Poll[^] BTW: The site is new - Any feed back would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Steve

[the real r2d2]

For members: itsDoc For arguements: theDoc For locals: aOK = false; while( ! aOK ) { : : aOK = true; } return aOK;

Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers - XTalk

[AccorTracy]

Can't stand them either. Half the time I'll fat-finger it and type ")" or "+", which means I have to stop and fix it, or look down at the keyboard to make sure my ring-finger is hitting the right key.

[Jasmine2501]

No. I reject such nonsense. When you say: private int NumberOfWheels; ...that makes it pretty clear. I reject comments, prefixes, and anything besides the above to define a variable. Everything you need to know about it is in the definition. I would also avoid basing any decisions on Microsoft sample code.

"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles.

[kgwalke]

I am not sure what language(s) you are talking about. However, the C++ standard reserves identifiers beginning with the underscore character[17.4.3.1.2]: "Each name that begins with an underscore is reserved to the implementation for use as a name in the global namespace". Some current styles recommend using a trailing underscore instead, as in private_.

[MSBassSinger]

It's OK with me if you reject it. I prefer my code to be readable by others. I program in VB6, VB.NET, and C#, depending on who I am programming for. The declaration of a variable is not the only place one see it. If somewhere in the code the reader comes across "NameID", I would like them to know if it is local or module level, if it is int16, int32, or int64. Chances are, someone else will have to support my code at sometime. The easier it is for them to understand it, the better off he and I are. JD Waleska, GA

[Jasmine2501]

I knew someone would mention that, but I didn't bother to head it off at the pass because I figured one would realize that with modern programming tools, that is no longer an issue. The definition of the thing is always available, and even if you're 500 lines away from it, you can always find it easily. Historically, I realize the purpose of hungarian-style notations in the variable name, but modern tools are making that notion obsolete and I prefer not to bog down my code with unnecessary stuff. Programmers coming along later won't have any confusion no matter what notations they are familiar with. If they can't read the variable definition, then they probably shouldn't be writing code in the first place.

"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles.

[MSBassSinger]

Sorry, but I don't take such an elitist view. I am all for new programmers learning, and code excerpts may not always be in the IDE. In addition, code tends to live a long time. You can't always count on the IDE being effective. Look at how MS screwed up the IDE from VB6 to VB.NET. After over 6 years of working with .NET, the IDE is starting to get back to being as useful as it was in 1998. I think how you notate your variables is perfectly fine. I choose to do mine the way I do for specific reasons. I am not likely to change just because Microsoft says so. JD Waleska, GA

[in9mar]

I like _them as well. The best way to differentiate easily between local variables and class variables. Combined with NOT having any public class variables this makes code very readable. Decrease in readability would only come from m_ . So that one I do not recommend. :)

[ITGFanatic]

I think awkward abbreviations like btn are a thing of the past thanks to IntelliSense. I always type out full names. I used to use something like validateButton, but I think buttonValidate would be better, since all buttons would be grouped together, along with the button event handlers that get auto-generated. I wish IntelliSense could group variables apart from functions. I hate scrolling through the mixture of the two. Though, I do believe prefixing could solve the sorting issue. Prefix controls with c_, properties with p_, etc. I don't like it, though.

[Purple Fox]

not for me thanks! I'll live with _'s in uppercase #defines but that's it. What's wrong with a simple 'm' prefix for member variables and 'mp' for pointer members? Adding a type prefix is overkill and exacerbates R.S.I. Maybe it's a British thing... would be interested to know if we've got a cultural coding standards divide!!

[DavidNohejl]

Phil HardingLuddite

"Historically, Luddites flourished In Britain from about 1811 to 1816. They were bands of men, organized, masked, anonymous, whose object was to destroy machinery used mostly in the textile industry." :wtf: (Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?[^]) Is that what you think about me? :-D

---

"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus

[Rocky Moore]

Wow, I am surprised! I am not sure I would be away from that new TV until my eyes could stand it no longer ;)

Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: SQL Server Express Warnings & Tips Latest Tech Blog Post: Ready for Internet TV?