Re: 'this' instance field reference

I hate the extra typing ... but I have even turned on the Eclipse warning
that lets me know when I forget to use this.

I used to do things like prefix the instance attribute names with "_" or, my
favorite, "d_".   But now, I have grown up and have stopped trying to avoid
doing what is right.  I use this.

So, now that I am using this, what should I do with static attributes?
<Classname>.<attributeName>?  Even when I am in the Class that contains the
static?  Oh, this is too much!  But, if I want to claim that this is right,
then I should use <Classname> for statics.

Bottomline:  Somehow, the scope of the attribute should be obvious anywhere
the attribute is used.  I use this for instance attributes and prefix my
static attribute names with "s_".

   Harold Meder.

On 8/2/06, Larry Karnowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Kevin,
> I don't understand why people are so afraid of typing five extra
> letters.  Just do it -- for both methods and instance variables.  It
> immediately removes all doubt as to the scope of the member in question,
> improves readability, and doesn't hurt anything.
>
> In other languages, most notably Python, you are required to use it to
> reference instance members at all.  (In Python it is "self." which is
> their equivalent of "this.")
>
> Larry "this.unafraid" Karnowski
>
> A. Kevin Baynes wrote:
> > In an unformal code review, I have a colleague who wrote :
> >
> > --
> > 'Access to instance fields should be prefixed with "this."'
> >
> > and
> >
> > 'Note I'm talking about variables here, not methods. I agree that
> > "this." is unconventional on method calls, but I think there is fairly
> > universal agreement these days about use of "this." on *variables*.'
> > --
> >
> > I know that 'this' is needed to resolve class level varaibles obscured
> > within a method by a local variable of the same name, and is needed to
> > call sibling constructors.
> >
> > I don't see any problem in referencing class variables as 'this.foo'
> > if you wish, it reads the same to me.
> >
> > My question is 'this' :
> >
> > Do any of you support this purported 'univeral agreement' theory?
> >
>
> --
> Larry Karnowski
> HickoryWind.org, Keeps Callin' Me Home
> Americana Music News, Reviews, & Personality
> www.hickorywind.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Juglist mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
>

_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[email protected]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org