<snip>
>>Personally, I don't use the m. in this case either, but it's really only a complication if you are not used to it. Fabio does one thing very properly - he remains consistent. If you handle your code in a completely consistent way, then it is not a complication. Again, I don't do it myself, but I can't find any justification in arguing with anyone that someone's code should not be entirely consisent (even if mine isn't).
>
>Alan,
>Read my sig and understand why I commented. Consistency is not the only issue. Standards are also important. Nobody writes m.this, so it is a de facto standard NOT to write m.this. The discussions have shown when mdot is useless. Even Fabio recognizes those cases. For example, the left argument was without the mdot. We should all agree that it's also not done to write m.this, even if it's in the right argument.


Peter you are wrong in this approach for a simple reason. You are arguing your point based on your sentence "Nobody writes m.this, so it is a de facto standard NOT to write m.this.". Fabio argues his point on whether or not memory variables should be prefixed with the "m." prefix to (a) identify their nature, (b) to avoid any possible confusion with fields, and (c) that it is the correct and consistent coding technique.

Your argument is based on what the masses do and assumes that what the masses do must be a standard and therefore correct. This idea is totally without merit. The masses do all sorts of stupid things including in code. That fact alone does not and should not make anything a standard.

At least Fabio puts forward a logical reason for using it. The fact that so many do not is neither here nor there in respect of what the correct usage is.