Re: coding style: this.field

[Colin Walters <walters redhat com>]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 11:36 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> Whats up with the random uses of this.field that the code seems to be
> full of? Sometimes its nice in constructors because you want to have
> parameters with the same name. But why use it elsewhere, when there is
> no need for it?

I dunno, I just think it makes things clearer.  At least Eclipse does
warn you if you do like foo = foo.  If someone wants to say it's one way
or the other that's fine by me.

However as far as coding style is concerned, I think we have a much
bigger problem on the web client side.  Particularly for CSS class
names.  topic.css is a terrible mess; there's no consistent mechanism
for figuring out which classes and ids correspond to which elements in
the UI.  This is something we'll want to change often I think.

My suggestion here is: If the element is generated by a JavaScript
class, prefix the element with <classname>, so we might have:
ClosedCommentCloserPerson.