Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:40:11 GMT
"Steve" <nospam_steved94@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
One other thing to note: Once I got used to reading and writing code using
these conventions, I found:
1) It makes reading code that follows these conventions a lot easier
2) It makes reading code that does not follow these conventions harder
(you get used not having to infer based on context).
This is the problem with getting attached to any particular convention.
If you review a lot of other people's code, you tend to learn how to look past
a lot of these conventions.
There also tends to be a standard naming convention for each language, and
that in fact is the best convention to use, even if you don't completely agree
with it. The reason is that this maximizes how your code can be reviewed and
maintained by others.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Rhythm has my soul.
.
- References:
- Suffix _T for types found good
- From: amado . alves
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Peter C. Chapin
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Steve
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Colin Paul Gloster
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Ray Blaak
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: amado . alves
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: amado . alves
- Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- From: Steve
- Suffix _T for types found good
- Prev by Date: Re: Larger matrices
- Next by Date: Re: Larger matrices
- Previous by thread: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- Next by thread: Re: Suffix _T for types found good
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|