Re: [boost] static in_class constants

Subject: Re: [boost] static in_class constants
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 13:25:17

Stewart, Robert wrote:
> 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.

Understood.

> 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).

That's my personal preference as well.

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