I'm with Brian. You need to do this some time with templates and it seems busy to me. However there are probably exceptions... On May 21, 2014 2:31 PM, "Brian Geffon" <bri...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think this-> is incredibly ugly an unnecessary, what does it really get > us? It will be become convention just as appending a underscore or adding > m_ in front of the name. In my opinion this-> should only be used in > situations where you need to disambiguate between variable names and not as > a convention for member variables. > > Brian > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:09 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Leif pointed out that I've been doing this, and now I'd like to propose > > this as an official style guideline. > > > > Within a class member function, access to class members should > use > > the explicit "this->foo" syntax. > > > > The rationale for this is that it makes it blindingly obvious that class > > members are being accessed in a way that naming conventions do not. We do > > not have a consistent naming convention for member variables, and at any > > rate, those conventions never apply to accessing member functions. Our > code > > is often difficult to read because it takes a long time to figure out > > whether names that are in scope are members, local variables, or > > file-locals. > > > > Obviously, there are cases where using "this->" is overkill, so I'm happy > > for this to be a judgement call. > > > > J > > >
