search for: _fnctn

...king that if the identifiers were tagged to specify scope, people would still be trying to use acronyms or single letters? So that, what in future code might be F, would instead be _f and that would be worse than f_ or s_f? I was thinking instead F would be (for new or modified code) _function or _fnctn or _func (as an object of type Function). Again, sorry -- I don't see how prepended underscore is worse than an appended one. Could you supply some examples, please? -----Original Message----- From: Tim Northover [mailto:t.p.northover at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 1:37 PM To:...

I so agree. I have found scope based coding conventions very useful. My favorite was: * Static data member: s_<lowerCaseLetterThenCamelCase> * Non-static data members: _<lowerCaseLetterThenCamelCase> (This was allowed by the C++ standard I last read. It’s _<UpperCase> that is reserved) * Function argments: