> I like the latter two styles, particularly the last one. That way you > can see at a glance that those member variables are defined in the > super class.
I like the second style because it makes it leaves the 2-d implementation hidden, which is the whole point of encapsulation. > But then I am a fan of Hungarian notation, which many > programmers can't stand. Is it that programmers can't stand it, or is it that they can't stand it when it's imposed when not needed? As a pseudo type system for languages with no typing it's pretty useful. To the extent that a language provides typing it's useless verging on dangerous because it can get out of synch with the actual type. I believe that any case of Hungarian notation being useful is evidence of a flaw in the language being used -- but arguably all languages are flawed in some way or other, so Hungarian /can/ be useful. At this level I don't recognise a difference between System and Applications Hungarian, by the way -- the difference is eliminated if you declare types corresponding to the "meanings", which is commonplace in, for example, Ada. -- Tim Rowe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
