|
Which Hungarian Notation are we taking about?
I think that putting the type of a variable in the variable name as prefix is redundant (with Intellisense at least), but Apps Hungarian is meaningful in my opinion.
Joel Polsky on Hungarian[^]
Larry Osterman on Hungarian[^]
There are hundreds of 'standards' all called Hungarian, and some are definitely superior to others.
That said, a good IDE makes naming conventions less important. And writing lpszTtt to indicate a tooltiptext string is horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
I generally do not follow "hungarian notation" in it's strictest sense and I believe that aside from a "prefix" notation on the front of your variable it's also good to have a good descriptive name. However I follow a more moderate dialect that's briefly descriptive for certain variable types.
The prefixes that I generally tend to use would be:
"p" for pointer, I use this more commonly than the rest. The rest I use sparingly.
"dw" or "i" for dword or unsigned int, integer, generally to simply denote it's a number.
"sz" for NULL-Term string
"swz" for wide char
"uc" for unicode_string
"g_" for Global. I like to use the "_" because it's easier to search for it in the debugger as "G" itself can get you functions that start with "G". Now don't give me that you shouldn't use globals in programming, that's definately true when possible (and usually is possible) however sometimes globals can be useful for things like maintaining a debug state that doesn't directly interact with your program's logic.
I saw someone post in this thread that said that they don't use it because "they will be the only ones viewing the code" so I guess they do not have a job, at least not a real one...
|
|
|
|
|
Toby Opferman wrote:
I generally do not follow "hungarian notation" in it's strictest sense
I don't believe anybody does that, because then you'll have to prefix you function names with the parameters and return type! There goes the intended readability..
Toby Opferman wrote:
it's also good to have a good descriptive name.
That certainly is a good practice. I've seen to many student that write code like:
<br />
int a, b, c<br />
<br />
Not only will nobody know why the variables are there and what they are used for, but it just makes the code look ugly.
I also favor the prefix_ to indicate a variable that is used in more than one scope. But I make an exception for structs. These types should'nt have any member functions and therefore you can omit the scope prefix, because you don't have to distinguish between locals and member variables by the prefix, since the struct's variable name does it for you.
Toby Opferman wrote:
I saw someone post in this thread that said that they don't use it because "they will be the only ones viewing the code" so I guess they do not have a job, at least not a real one...
That certainly is a bad practice. Everyone should not test their own code and reviewing your code with others helps to improve things a lot..
I also got the blogging virus..[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
hongarian notation
Hungarian?
[worldspawn]
|
|
|
|
|
Hallo,
I am not following hungarian. I am using my own naming convention.
first I name the scope, than the type, than the name like
privStrUserName,pubBolLockedIn something like this.
Personally I like it. Maybe I am oldfashioned. 
Chris
Vietiane (Laos)
|
|
|
|
|
This is the convention I have been using since day one and have carried it across all languages that I code with.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole casing thing is a problem, and I've been bitten by other things as well. I tend to write CLS Compliant projects, and then when my code is not CLS compliant, it's knowingly so, I set the attribute to say I know and accept the fact.
I find though that I often have a camel case private variable, and a first letter uppercase property, and that's not CLS compliant, apparently. You can use _ for the first letter of a private variable, in fact CLS compliance suggests this. I don't like that though.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I find though that I often have a camel case private variable, and a first letter uppercase property, and that's not CLS compliant, apparently.
I think the problem here is, e.g., VB. VB cannot understand a property defined this way because of case insensitivity. However, I'd have thought MS could have designed VB to cope with this. You can already have a type name and a variable name the same. Makes sense as they're in different namespaces.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
I dont see how you COULD write case insensitive code in C# or VC++
|
|
|
|
|
Case insensitivity means not having two identifiers in the same scope whose name differs only in case. It's easy enough to do this in the C-family languages and it's generally recommended anyway.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
My VB projects follows these rules:
1) Private vars with class scope:
Private mVarName As String
2) The properties that access them:
Public property VarName() As String
3) Vars with narrow (function level) scope
Dim varName As Integer
Never had a case of being confused....
George Carlin wrote:
"Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the a**hole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Cassick wrote:
Never had a case of being confused....
For once, this was not a VB bash. The problem I have is that the way I case variables, I am not CLS compliant. Because if I need a scratch variable, I am likely to do this:
Bitmap bitmap = CallSomeFunction();
And I can't do that, because VB is crap and does not recognise case. Oops, I guess it does relate to VB....
It also means I can't do properties like this:
Bitmap sourceImage;
public Bitmap SourceImage
{
get
{
return sourceImage;
}
}
For example.
Casing is one more place where VB won't hurt a disciplined programmer, but helps idiots write unreadable spagetti.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
I don't write dot net code, but I have been using underscore for my local variables for the longest time!
It seems like the rest of the industry is slowly catching up with me 
|
|
|
|
|
Hate to break it to your exclusive future but: CLS-compliant means, among other things, no underscores in variable names
regards,
Paul Watson
South Africa
PMW Photography
Gary Wheeler wrote:
It's people like you that keep me heading for my big debut on CNN...
|
|
|
|
|
From what I read in this forum, it seems that this rule only applies to the public interface, does it not ?
So, my "local variable" have a even more "private" scope than the private attributes, for they are allocated on the stack, quite invisible from the interface standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you don't write C++ code... 
Medication for us all
You think you know me, well you're wrong
|
|
|
|
|
Sure I write C++ code, and nothing else much.
Why wouldn't I ?
|
|
|
|
|
When I was developing .NET code, I used to run FxCop[^] before each check-in to VSS, and FxCop reports any non CLS-compliant code. However, it seems I was the only one in the office that practiced this 
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Me: I recommend we use FxCop for our projects.
Co-worker (not CP): I think I saw that movie once.
Me: Yeah, bad ending though eh?
regards,
Paul Watson
South Africa
PMW Photography
Gary Wheeler wrote:
It's people like you that keep me heading for my big debut on CNN...
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
FxCop reports any non CLS-compliant code.
You mean the CLSCompliant attribute is not enough?
Regards,
Alvaro
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. -- GWB, 1999.
|
|
|
|
|
It is. Actually, what FxCop does is report an error if CLSCompliant attribute is missing and then leaves the actual enforcement of CLS compliance to the compiler.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Running code through FxCop is a really bad way to start the day. "I don't like your naming convention", "get rid of that underscore", "why are initialising that value to null you idiot", "I don't like it when you contract string to str"
OK, OK - I'll fix it. Sheesh. 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The first time I ran it and it came back with over 100 errors, I thought about changing careers.
Jeff Martin
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
I write cls compliant code (as much as possible given the particulars of the project), but since internals are often renamed, why dones internal naming conventions make code "CLS" or "NON-CLS"? to me writing cls compliant code is writing code which complies to the standards of the common runtime language, not a common naming convention...
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
Writing CLS-compliant means, among other things, no underscores in variable names, no unsigned integers and case insensivity in naming. Do you bother?
Notice the text in bold - "among other things"
Nish
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
