Consistency is good, consistency is light, consistency is really what you need think about when creating code, no matter what format, language, platform or project you're on do things the same way, and even on your first pass do them your way consistently before you apply any locally demanded view of the code....
What do I mean by view? Well, I'm talking about coding standards, but the non-functional side of things, hence the view. You can look at code from any angle you choose, indeed there are multiple ways to achieve the same solution within code, the difficulty is to get things out there, put them down, then sort the wheat from the chaff.
I've done this in a couple of videos, where I move pieces of code from their own coding layout to my own, I have labelled these "coding standards", but in retrospect they've just the coding view.
One of my big points is the notation for the scope of variables, I love to use scoped notation. Having been brought into programming when Hungarian notation was not only taught to you academically as required, but demanded by all projects you worked on (basically as you had no code completion tools, so knowing the type of a named variable whenever you utilised it was really very useful) but that was twenty plus years ago, now we have code completion I strongly feel your tools should be made to work for you.
Therefore, when I complete a call or variable name, I want that to communicate something to me, and the most useful is to check the scope, the code completion tells me the type and the name, but scoping isn't really fully covered in the tooling (please post below any suggestions for Visual Studio, Atom, CodeBlocks or Visual Studio Code which perform scope notation or checking on the fly).
When I complete my typing and pause I want to see all the m_ members together, all the c_ constants all the s_ statics and so many coding standards documents define these three. However, it's just not far enough, what happens when you have locals named 'angle', 'view' and 'Gregorian'? They're at very different points within the code completion window which pops up, you have to remove your hands from the keyboard to begin scrolling through them; or worse still start typing letters in order to guess the name (for instance we may start to type a c to see if 'Gregorian' comes up actually as 'calendar').
My solution? The solution I've been pushing time after time, post after post, video after video? Scope more things.
We can add "local" as "l_", parameters as "p_", we can compound them, so a static constant maybe "sc_" and we can tailor this in whichever manner we feel fits best, but be consistent.
Let me be utterly clear, this is not Hungarian notation of old, we are not adding "i" to integers or "l" to longs, we are not defining the type within the name, we are simply defining the scope and helping the tools to help us by grouping the various scopes of variables together.
I find it incredibly hard to read documents which go half way, defining members as "m_" (or just a leading m) is extremely common, ditto for constants and even statics, it's only with parameters people get a little squeamish. "p_" is sometimes reserved for pointer, but that's a style edging back to Hungarian you're notifying the reader of the type and use rather than the scope, therefore I push "p_" as a parameter. But I can also see arguments for "i_" and "o_" for parameters, which tell you it's an input or output to the function. If one wanted to be a pedant you could go so far as to stress this with "pi_" and "pi_".
This isn't to say I'm for everything, for example in returning from a function:
int foo();
I will not define an "r_" as the return scope, I'm not interested in the semantics to that extent, and I don't feel code like this:
int foo()
{
int r_result(0);
... Some code to set r_result
return r_result;
}
Is communicating anything useful, so often in my code you will find:
int foo()
{
int l_result(0);
... Some code to set l_result
return l_result;
}
As the result remains a local until returned.
Which brings me back to my second bug bear of the month, one which I've already blogged about returning early. I'll let you remind yourselves of my opinions.
And just a note to the world at large, if you're coding "m_" for members, but ALSO add Hungarian notations "m_iInteger" stop, stop it now... and yes that includes when you're doing pointers "int* m_pIntegerList"... argh, I want to pull my own arm off just to have something to throw at the screen when I see this one, it's a hybrid as annoying as the Alien in Alien Resurrection.
What's my solution?... Well the completely sane idea I use is "m_IntegerListPtr"... Yes, it's a pointer... I tell myself it's one, I'm not strange at all... Alright, maybe a little.
And just a note to the world at large, if you're coding "m_" for members, but ALSO add Hungarian notations "m_iInteger" stop, stop it now... and yes that includes when you're doing pointers "int* m_pIntegerList"... argh, I want to pull my own arm off just to have something to throw at the screen when I see this one, it's a hybrid as annoying as the Alien in Alien Resurrection.
What's my solution?... Well the completely sane idea I use is "m_IntegerListPtr"... Yes, it's a pointer... I tell myself it's one, I'm not strange at all... Alright, maybe a little.
