On 1/30/11 1:38 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I have to say that the underscore tradition is an esthetic issue about which > there is some strong disagreement. > > I find it particularly distasteful. > > And, for what it is worth, I think that the Sun coding conventions recommend > against it. > +1
Phil > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Gilles Sadowski < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > >>> I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments >>> have the same name. As far as I remember that is not good practise, >>> but I might be wrong :-)? >> Most (all?) of CM follows this convention. >> >> [Personally I prefer that fieds use names prefixed by an underscore >> character so that when method or constructor arguments reflect the meaning >> of those fields, one does not have to use the "this" keyword (i.e. I use >> the >> convention where the '_' character means "This is an instance variable").] >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
