Subject: Re: [boost] static in_class constants
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 12:43:58
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Herve Bronnimann wrote:
> > Someone is bound to reply this sooner or later so I thought
> > I might: it's a bad idea because of (see below). Boost convention
> > uses m_ prefix for members.
> Is this m_ prefix convention documented anywhere?
No. There is, by design as I recall, no mention of naming conventions except as names bear on eventual inclusion in the Standard. Since implementation details are not documented in the Standard, neither are they imposed by Boost.
As for the "m_" prefix being the conventional preference, you'll find at least as many rail against that convention as use it.
My style is to postfix private data members with an underscore (so they are distinct while keeping the underscore, which is less important than the rest of the variable name, out of the way).
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk