Stewart, Robert wrote:
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Herve Bronnimann wrote:
Someone is bound to reply this sooner or later so I thought I might: it's a bad idea because of (see below). Boost convention uses m_ prefix for members. Is this m_ prefix convention documented anywhere?
No. There is, by design as I recall, no mention of naming conventions except as names bear on eventual inclusion in the Standard. Since implementation details are not documented in the Standard, neither are they imposed by Boost.
As for the "m_" prefix being the conventional preference, you'll find at least as many rail against that convention as use it.
Understood.
My style is to postfix private data members with an underscore (so they are distinct while keeping the underscore, which is less important than the rest of the variable name, out of the way).
That's my personal preference as well. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net