Giacomo Pati wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > > >> - this.reset(); > >> - this.init(); > >> + reset(); > >> + init(); > > > > > > Why do you make these changes? A long time ago, we decided that > > this.method() > > is more readable and we want to use that :) > > More readable? There is no semantic difference between this.method() and > method(). Actually I find it silly to add the 'this.' to a method call. > If you write method(), you don't know if you call a static method or not. If you write this.method(), at least the compiler gives you a warning *if* you call a static method. So if you use it wisely, you see what's going on.
> It make sense for member variables but there I'd like to add a prefix > like m_ which cannot be forgotten (as like the 'this.' prefix) and thus > clearly indicates what kind of variable it is (but that is personal > preference, I know ;-) > :) Please, everything, but not adding these prefixes like 'm_'. So, in the end, we see here why we shouldn't have strikt coding conventions, the opinions differ widely :) Carsten
