[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > I used to agree with you [about Hungarian notation] until I read this:
> http://
> > www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> > Hungarian notation has an (undeserved) bad reputation.
>
> +1 That's a real eye-opening piece. In a nutshell :
>
> "we decided that us meant "unsafe string" and s meant "safe string."
> They're both of type string. The compiler won't help you if you assign
> one to the other and Intellisense won't tell you bupkis. But they are
> semantically different; they need to be interpreted differently and
> treated differently"
>
This was the reason why I referenced the article in my original post, I thought
in context it was clear enough that in the KML definition of complex element
(one with child elements) and simple elements (one with text nodes) there was a
similarity to the original hungarian notation, in that with this convention one
would know from the name what kinds of operations were sensible.
|
