Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
From: "Conor MacNeill" <conor@ebinteractive.com.au>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Cc: <mvdb@mvdb.com>
Subject: RE: Additions changes to the taskdefs.
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:29:50 +1100
Message-ID: <NDBBIMHCHMPELMBMMFIMMEKHEOAA.conor@ebinteractive.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <NDBBLDFNNODMICGNKHGIOEMPMPAA.mvdb@mvdb.com>

Martin,

> Now a coding question :
>
> In some (didn't check them all btw). The init of an instance variable is
> done with this.Blabla = "bla";
> Only in the code this.Blabla is never used, only Blabla (it works
> I know..).
> Is it just my horrible view on programming or it "nicer/neater" to use
> this.Blabla anywhere to reference the instance variable?
> (I'm using a lot of the same variable names (bad in thinking one
> up, and the
> dummy1, dummy2 isn't very descriptive) and using the this. is pretty nice
> then).
> Let me know what you're opinion about this is..
>

Ahh, love those style questions.

My personal preferences:

I tend to use this.blah only when blah by itself would be ambiguous. This is
usually the case in the setter for blah and perhaps a constructor in which a
value for blah is passed. It saves me thinking up new variable names which
are usually contrived; something like aBlah, theBlah, newBlah, _blah, etc. I
don't like the use of this.blah everywhere. When I am reading the code for
an object (class), I like to "live" in it, to assume its context and
this.blah just becomes distracting. Nor do I like the use of _blah to
distinguish private fields but some would disagree (Simeon?).

Your religion may vary.

Conor