For me, I think either just T or FooType. I do have to admit that I've had classes with more than one parameter where I've had to go back and look up the type bounds, or confused S or T.
-Ray On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Ian Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Isaac Truett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think TFoo and FOO disturb the Feng >> Shui of the code without adding real value. Go with F because it's >> what the cool kids are doing or FooType because it's descriptive and >> consistent with other standard identifiers. > > I have an unjustifiable distaste for TFoo and FOO, but I could > probably learn to read either. I like FooType. As another option, > what about borrowing the "standard" I've seen for typedefs in C: > Foo_t. Or, to be a little more Javaish (which seems to involve > avoiding underscores), how about FooT? > > Ian > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
