So, how would you go if you were to eliminate the hungarian notation?

[felipe_dimmu23]

Going away from the discussion of best practices, and why people think naving convention belongs to best practice documents, I would like to know what would be your approach as a developer to something that still feels weird to me on the way I have practiced not using the hungarian in a personal project.

Recap from wikipedia

Hungarian notation is an identifier naming convention in computer programming, in which the name of a variable or function indicates its intention or kind, and in some dialects its type.

So iv, it, rt, gc,lv...those things.

Continuing

Perhaps because I can't visualize both method definition and implementation at the same instant (Eclipse, at least), I have to navigate sometimes to understand what is what, justifying the hungarian again. My issue example:

methods:
  do_something
    importing
       item_list type <something>.

data:
   items type <something>
endclass.
...
method do_something.
   items = item_list.
endmethod.

Sure, we have cleancode to keeps things small and improve my reading of it. But still, once I felt in my own trap of assuming item was a member attribute and item_list was an importing paremeter, while both were member attributes and the importing parameter was something else. I will accept you saying that then it "is a code smell, refactor", and it is what I did but I still lost time to figure "Who's who". And I'm used to write parameters with importing and returning only, so I'm don't even consider "is this a changing, exporting"?

What I have tried and see as option:

1) Really old stuff, and seems like a negation operator like in javascript:

methods:
  do_something
    !item_list type <something>.

method do_something.
   item_list = !item_list. 
endmethod.

2) Using me, allowing even exact same name...but people don't invite me to dinners anymore when I use me:

methods:
  do_something
    importing
       item_list type <something>.

data:
   item_list type <something>
endclass.
...
method do_something.
   me->item_list = item_list.
endmethod.

3) ...yes, the Hungarian for import, (I always just give result as a name to returning).

method do_something.
   item_list = i_item_list.
endmethod.

Should I keep without any prefix? Will this feeling go away if I keep practicing? I've practiced for 3 days and feeling is still there.

Thanks for chipping in!

[matt]

Read the ABAP style guide in help.sap.com. Search the various discussion concerning the use of HN.

1)

methods:
  do_something
    !item_list type <something>.

Discussed here: https://answers.sap.com/questions/1734571/what%27s--in-method-declaration-in-class.html
I see it when I edit a class in Eclipse that was created with SE24.

2)

I used to use me->, but stopped. (I do use this. in Java) The idea is that the code in a method should be small enough that it's obvious what's local and what's a class attribute, especially when the local variable is declared very close to use or via DATA(var) = 'Fish'. Parameters aren't an issue, because...

3)

HN is used with L_ to indicate scope, and T_, R_ or S_ to indicate kind - i.e. Table, Structure, Reference... That is considered in modern programming to be bad and, with more complex types, in many cases utterly useless.

But it's fine to use it to indicate use. That's why I use G_ for global variables (when I absolutely must use them), and I_ E_ and X_ for importing, exporting and changing parameters. Although, to be honest, when programming in Java, I don't... Hey, I'm nothing if not irrational and inconsistent! ��

Finally, some True Believers of the HN Holy War will be along soon. Don't listen to them.

[felipe_dimmu23]

Hehehe yes! It is weird like something feels natural in a language and weird on others!

I guess those true believers need them...If my code is always an FM with 2k lines in a function group with shared variables all over, I would defend it to the death too!

Amem to clean code! All hail uncle bob for saving us \o/

[ascm]

Hi.

I do it the same way. G_ for global and the prefix Eclipse sets for the parameters of a method. So there ist no need of ME and it's a bit better for those who still use HN.

The problem with the HN ist that you must know if it is local or global. When i see codings form others at work it is often mixed or they use I instead of l. And then they scream when they see coding without HN. :')

[Sandra_Rossi]

! is explained in the ABAP documentation Escape character for names, but I'm surprised that it's used by the compiler to distinguish the attribute from the parameter. I wouldn't trust this solution, as it could be incorrect in the future.

The two other solutions would be fine for me, but I prefer the 2nd one.

[matt]

It must be obsolete. When I use eclipse to edit class created in SE24, I see the !. When I remove them, it all works fine.

[matt]

Ah - now read the link. I've not tried with a parameter called WRITE for example. I use prefixes here anyway.

[felipe_dimmu23]

I'm very much inclined to go for option 2 too...