>>>Typically I use "m_" *only* for private/protected members that I intend to expose as public properties. For objects where I cannot come up with any clear-cut prefix (or don't feel like using a prefix), I simply use "o". An example would be that Binding member that I called oBinding. Seems silly to use a prefix on that (what would it be? bindBinding? bndBinding? ... dunno, I like oBinding better).
>>
>>Hi,
>>No axe to grind whatsoever but I'm curious as to why you use Hungarian notation at all. MS guidelines are against it (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229045.aspx) and most code samples don't use it. I see it most often used by programmers who have come from a non-strongly typed language like VFP. I sometimes find myself doing it out of habit but when I think about it I don't see the benefit - the actual *exact* type of the object is immediately obvious by hovering over it - and a mis-placed prefix can be misleading......
>
>Hi Viv ... I mostly agree with you. I really only use Hungarian notation for UI controls, such as txtLastName or cboStreetType. The "o" prefix isn't much use as far as determining type, just an convenient way to name an instance object.

Now that you mention it the naming of UI controls is exactly where I tend to use it too and I've just realized why - in XAML it *definitely* serves a purpose in helping to identify what's going on.

>
>And as far as MS guidelines go, well ... sometimes they're useful, sometimes I totally disagree (need I go on any rants against some of my "favorite" topics, such as TableAdapters? <g>)

I *think* I used TableAdapters once for a quick-and-dirty solution to something but can't remember much about 'em (currently thrashing around in Entity Framework......)