search for: m_tlathatdoessometh

Hi Tim, Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. Are you maybe thinking 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

...> wrote: > Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. In conventional English usage, acronyms always use upper-case. All other coding conventions deal with that situation gracefully (or at least not terribly). If someone strictly follows the coding convention you might end up with a weird identifier (m_tlaThatDoesSomething, m_tLAThatDoesSomething, ...); if they favour English over coding you get (m_TLAThatDoesSomething). The leading underscore is unique in turning that last case into something that violates the language standard, and for me that's enough to eliminate it from contention. I strongly discourage...