well I usually do my variables (within a class) one per line but not the way adrianxw means. It's more like this:
Code:class Blah { public: int m_x, m_y, m_z; char *m_ptr, m_str[256], m_singlechar; }
char* name;
char *name;
char * name;
Other (plz post)
well I usually do my variables (within a class) one per line but not the way adrianxw means. It's more like this:
Code:class Blah { public: int m_x, m_y, m_z; char *m_ptr, m_str[256], m_singlechar; }
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
Am I the only one that uses?????Code:type * pVar;
>>Am I the only one that uses
Yes - because nobody liks hungarian notation. To quote DavidP "A horse is a horse; there is no excuse for Hungarian Notation"
Anyhow, I always use char *whatever. It's just how I learned it...I don't see the value in changing the way I do it if it's all aesthetics.
There's no need for hungarian notation in a type-safe language like C++Originally posted by Krak
Am I the only one that uses?????Code:type * pVar;
It may have had a small place in C, but certainly not C++
>>>
To quote DavidP "A horse is a horse; there is no excuse for Hungarian Notation"
<<<
A "horse" is actually an "orse" handle...
I believe there is a difference between Hungarian notation and calling pointers pSomething.
The full Hungarian notation may have had a small use back in the dim and distant, but with todays IDE's, if I am unsure what something is declared as, I put my cursor on it and the IDE tells me, and offers to show me the declaration. Hungarian notation is inexcusable obfuscation.
Frequently, however, I have an object and a pointer to the same object, Object and pObject. People will say that is Hungarian, but I would add, that I have been doing that since the late 70's, ergo, pre Hungarian, simple common sense.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I'll concede - that point hadn't crossed my mind. You're right, even I do that if I have a pointer to the same data...
>>A "horse" is actually an "orse" handle...
Speaking of which, hWhatever is also something I do quite frequently thanks to Petzold
As far as I can remember, that's about as deep into notation that I go...maybe I've left something out, but I doubt that...
Oh, and every once-in-a-while I'll do the whole CClass thing...not all that often, though...
My turn to confess, yes, I do call a handle to something an hSomething, but yes, that is also as far as I go.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I just do it out of habit. When I started doing pointer crap, I just used:Originally posted by -KEN-
>>Am I the only one that uses
Yes - because nobody liks hungarian notation. To quote DavidP "A horse is a horse; there is no excuse for Hungarian Notation"
Anyhow, I always use char *whatever. It's just how I learned it...I don't see the value in changing the way I do it if it's all aesthetics.
int * pPointer;
I just feel more comfortable with that method for some reason.
Hungarian notation? Meh. Screw that. I'm calling this "Krak Notation", since only I use it. Besides, it's not like it hurts anything.
FILE *fp;
always, i don;t feel comfortable putting it like FILE* fp; it just feels wierd!
char *pVar; actually... I learned it that way, and since I never declare multiple pointers on the same line or grouped, theres never confusion.
>>... and one declaration per line - no confusion.
Dito. Inside classes I will often group simular data such as FillYourBrain demonstrates:
As for pVar: Always. I always identify pointers (for all the same reasons that have already been presented).Code:int x, y, z;
"There's always another way"
-lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)
I use it because my data types won't associate with the lowly *, so it has to hang with my identifiers. Poor little guy, nobody ever considers how the operators feel, it's all about data types. My identifiers are cooler anyway, so the * is happier with them than with the cliquish data types :-)Code:char *var;
*Cela*
>My turn to confess, yes, I do call a handle to something an hSomething, but yes, that is also as far as I go.
i for some reason, always prefix bools with b
bool bThis, bThat;
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
Well, if we're all confessing our dirty little habits... My BOOLs are always fully uppercase. It just seems weird any other way. BOOL, TRUE, FALSE... It just works. *shrug* Though possibly I prefix by 'Is': IsCOMPLETE, etc.
"There's always another way"
-lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)
but isn't that a little ugly? i only cap my defines, and i always suffix my typedefs with '_t'.
and how's this for retarded!!!! i always prefix my enum type names with enum_ haha!!
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
>>but isn't that a little ugly? i only cap my defines
I also cap my defines (in 99% of cases. There have been times when lowercase defines became appropriate). But an uppercase BOOL only seems right.
BOOL IsComplete = TRUE;
BOOL IsCOMPLETE = TRUE;
It actually came to pass when I was writing some code for an older application and came across the rather unsual problem of strange results traced to passing a BOOL pointer to a function that accepted a bool pointer. The difference was not immediatly obvious, and it caused some confusion before realising that a BOOL is actually a 32-bit type. So I started differentiating my newly implemented BOOL variables by making them uppercase to avoid confusion when comparing them to the existing bools. The project was large and I got rather used to it...
"There's always another way"
-lightatdawn (lightatdawn.cprogramming.com)