[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: a useful naming convention

• To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: Re: a useful naming convention
• From: Bryan Rasmussen <bry@i...>
• Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:40:33 +0200
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c0508041158782797ee@m...>
• References: <auto-000012869252@s...> <81205DD8-C82A-4C67-A14A-21F7FC9631A1@i...> <e3a5cb2c0508041158782797ee@m...>
• User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2

> > I used to agree with you [about Hungarian notation] until I read this:
> http://
> > www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> > Hungarian notation has an (undeserved) bad reputation.
> 
> +1 That's a real eye-opening piece.  In a nutshell :
> 
> "we decided that us meant "unsafe string" and s meant "safe string."
> They're both of type string. The compiler won't help you if you assign
> one to the other and Intellisense won't tell you bupkis. But they are
> semantically different; they need to be interpreted differently and
> treated differently"
>
This was the reason why I referenced the article in my original post, I thought
in context it was clear enough that in the KML definition of complex element
(one with child elements) and simple elements (one with text nodes) there was a
similarity to the original hungarian notation, in that with this convention one
would know from the name what kinds of operations were sensible. 

• References:
  • Re: a useful naming convention
    • From: Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@i...>
  • Re: a useful naming convention
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: How to compare two DOM Node and XML file?
• Next by Date: RE: Constrain the Number of Occurrences of Elements in your XML Schema
• Previous by thread: Re: a useful naming convention
• Next by thread: RE: a useful naming convention
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread