>As for hungarian notation -- I have found that code I write using it
>is easier to maintain as the type of variables is clearly in the
>variable name. Once, when using PLM on an 8031, we had a strange bug
>that we traced to a timer using a char variable, but the valid range
>was something like 300 or so -- hungarian notation makes finding
>such bugs MUCH easier. Just because Microsoft adopted this notation
Sorry, but no.
If you do the following thing:
--- cut ---
main()
{
unsigned char a;
char b;
b = -20;
a=b;
printf("%d\n", a);
}
--- cut ---
and you wonder about the "236" result, then you're either using the
wrong language which does not tell you about such hidden problems [1]
or you have problems understanding your code.
The _MAIN_ problem that I have with hungarian is, that it gives you a
false sense of security. So this is a "pv" (pointer to void). I read
it somewhere and then I assume "pointer to void". But it is still
perfectly legal to write "char pv;" and use this pv. So what do I get
from hungarian? Nothing.
If you need a language which enforces types with the variable names,
why not use Fortran? There is a "VisualFortran" for sure. ;-)
[1] I don't write bug. One man's bug is another man's obfuscation.
Kind regards
Henning
-- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@tanstaafl.de TANSTAAFL! Consulting - Unix, Internet, SecurityHutweide 15 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 "There ain't no such D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 thing as a free Linux"
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/