🚀 go-pugleaf

Jason D. Morris wrote:
> 
> On 29 Mar 1996 09:07:43 PST, davidb@datalytics.com (David Bradley)
> wrote:
> 
> >Lastly the naming of the data member/accessors breaks most common
> >styles.  Usually the member functions are distingiushed in some manner
> >from the data members.
> 
> If you mean not explicitly naming the get/set functions with get/set
> tacked on the beginning of the name then yes, I agree that the
> property template breaks with common style.  Personally, I never use
> get/set prefixes in any of the code that I write.  When I do have
> members that perform get/set operations I overload member function
> acessors with names like those used by the property class.  Client
> code should never rely on any internal class implementation details;
> only interfaces to the services provided by the class.
> 

Consider a naming convention in which dms are prefixed with 
"m_."  In that case, public dms would have names like "m_Data," 
while the corresponding accessor/modifier mfs would be named 
"Data."  Only when dms are named the same way as mfs would there 
be no problem recognizing that you just add parentheses to the 
dm name.

-- 
Robert Stewart		| My opinions are usually my own.
Datalytics, Inc.	| stew@datalytics.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]