[Sergio0694]

This PR adds the missing this. prefix to all leftover field accesses.

[Nirmal4G]

Seeing the code, we'll know whether it's a parameter from the method or a field and a property within the class/struct. Do we have to add these? It is visually distracting. IMO, it's best to remove all this qualifiers unless the names of the method and parameter are the same which is rare and compiler would certainly complain about it.

So, I think it is safe to remove all this! On that note, we should also come up with a definite way to name fields. Whether prefixing _ underscore is required or not. There are a lot of inconsistencies here. I vote NO but some .NET projects use them!

[Sergio0694]

Fields should just be named lowerCamelCase. The only reason why some use _lowerCamelCase is that they're from old classes we haven't refactored yet. I guess I might as well update those too while at it, since it's not a breaking change anyway.

"Seeing the code, we'll know whether it's a parameter from the method or a field and a property within the class/struct. Do we have to add these? It is visually distracting."

Adding this. makes the code less error prone, as it avoids the risk of accidentally referencing a local or a parameter with the same name. Yes, you can manually add this. when there's a conflict, but that is precisely the point - making this mandatory means you don't have to rememeber, and you can't make mistakes. If there's this, it's 100% a field.

[Nirmal4G]

Yes, you can manually add this. when there's a conflict, but that is precisely the point - making this mandatory means you don't have to remember, and you can't make mistakes. If there's this, it's 100% a field.

Guess it makes sense! Still, I personally hate it. I just use different names for parameters, locals and fields.

[Balkoth]

Theres this directly from the runtime team.

[Sergio0694]

That is not the official guidance for all C# developers, just the style convention the runtime uses 🙂