On Wednesday 09 May 2001 10:44, David Grove wrote: > I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me, > until I saw the actual compliance with that request culminate in a local > variable named l_st_uliI. Of course, that's an "static unsigned int i" > used as a simple iterator in local scope. Of course, written more > appropriately, this would have just been "static unsigned int i". At that > point, Hungarian notation fell apart for me. Its strict use adds (IMO) as > much confusion as MicroSoft's redefinition of C, with thousands of > typedefs representing basic types ("LPSTR" and "HWND" come to mind as the > most common). Not mention the hoop-jumping required to keep variable names in sync with code changes. (signed-ness, short->int->long, etc) -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Dan Sugalski
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Eric Roode
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Matt Youell
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall