Hi RagTag.
Not an answer.
I too have ummed and rrrred about this. And alternate between, all fields are base types. Or everything seperate and the field of them (Exactly as yourself)
Ive gone for your first example, (But all my fields have lot longer names). Simply on the grounds that it easyer to remember.
My opinion of overhead/optimisation at the moment, is always go for the easyest to remember with everything;
So "Player.ItsTVector.CoOrdX" (EDIT: I use ziggy's BLIDE, and the code/type completion saves loads of typeing and makes longer names more useable.)
I wanted to do the "fastest" code way. But my understanding is that means without types, and using gotos. (This might be wrong, and is definatly exagerated).
And to be honest, it takes me so long to finish anything that;
1)Using good names/types, makes the code eayer to understand (It like free rems)
2) By that time the adverage prossesor speed is probably going to be double what it is now
Not an answer.
I too have ummed and rrrred about this. And alternate between, all fields are base types. Or everything seperate and the field of them (Exactly as yourself)
Ive gone for your first example, (But all my fields have lot longer names). Simply on the grounds that it easyer to remember.
My opinion of overhead/optimisation at the moment, is always go for the easyest to remember with everything;
So "Player.ItsTVector.CoOrdX" (EDIT: I use ziggy's BLIDE, and the code/type completion saves loads of typeing and makes longer names more useable.)
I wanted to do the "fastest" code way. But my understanding is that means without types, and using gotos. (This might be wrong, and is definatly exagerated).
And to be honest, it takes me so long to finish anything that;
1)Using good names/types, makes the code eayer to understand (It like free rems)
2) By that time the adverage prossesor speed is probably going to be double what it is now