On May 25, 2010, at 3:05 AM, TAMURA, Kent wrote:
>> Generally speaking I suggest we do not use the "m_" prefix for the members
>> of structs. And I suggest that classes with public data members be structs
>> instead of classes. Classes that have public data members only for
>> historical reasons should be changed so the data members are not public. We
>> should talk some specific examples.
>
> As for protected data members, many classes use "m_" prefix. I found
> protected members without "m_" in HTMLTableCellElement and
> HTMLTableColElement. I guess they are legacy code and we should use "m_" for
> protected members too.
Older classes did not use the "m_" prefix consistently. Public and protected
members were a little slower to get changed than others because they affected
more source files. We want to use "m_" for all non-static data members, but
data members should also be private.
Generally speaking, protected data members should be avoided entirely. Existing
protected data members should generally be replaced with private data members
and we can add protected accessor functions as needed.
-- Darin
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
