Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > 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.
|
