Naming Convention Violation On The .NET BCL

I wonder who is responsible for this:

public class Formatter

{

    // ...

 

    protected ObjectIDGenerator m_idGenerator;

 

 

    protected Formatter m_objectQueue;

 

    // ...

 

}

Can you spot how many naming conventions were violated here?

Published Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:16 AM by Paulo Morgado

Comments

Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:54 AM by Denis

# re: Naming Convention Violation On The .NET BCL

IMO conventions are always related to people willing to comply with them. Then to avoid long debates about naming conventions, you could write "Microsoft naming conventions" ;)

Friday, June 22, 2007 2:58 PM by PeterRitchie

# re: Naming Convention Violation On The .NET BCL

That's one of the problems with public fields, they're now burned into the interface and can never be removed, only obsoleted.

Saturday, June 23, 2007 6:31 PM by Paulo Morgado

# re: Naming Convention Violation On The .NET BCL

That's why this is more a class library design guideline violation that a naming convention violation:

Do not use instance fields that are public or protected (...)

msdn2.microsoft.com/.../ta31s3bc(VS.71).aspx

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)