Re: [boost] static in_class constants

Subject: Re: [boost] static in_class constants
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 12:02:05

Christian Henning wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
> 
>> I have question of different nature, why the names are prefixed 
>> with underscore? Does it denote they are private, as implementation
>>  detail, shouldn't be used as part of public interface, any other 
>> purpose?
> 
> 
> It's my coding style to have members ( public, protected, private ) 
> marked with an underscore. I believe it enhances readability. But 
> that might be just me.

OK, that's what I was asking about.
I just wanted to learn how to interpret these names.

I don't comment them if I like or not as this belongs to coding
style which is a subjective matter :-)
However, I'd be careful with underscore prefix, in general, regarding to
C++/17.4.3.1.2. I noticed that inclusion guards in IO 2use reserved
names startign with underscore followed by uppercase.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net