🚀 go-pugleaf

On 27 Feb 2018 12:15:31 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Tue, 2018-02-27, J  Clarke wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2018 11:32:49 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2018-02-26, J  Clarke wrote:
>>>> On 26 Feb 2018 06:43:24 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 2018-02-26, Dan Espen wrote:
>...
>>>>>> In the above case, the code still needs a comment
>>>>>> but it should be something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x=5;		# Max supported fingers
>>>>>
>>>>>max_supported_fingers=5;  # Nothing more to say
>>>>
>>>> But a lot more to type and that style tends to be hard to
>>>> read--operators get lost in the visual noise.
>>>
>>>A lot more to type, but a lot less to remember.  I agree that the
>>>visual noise aspect is a problem, though.
>>>
>>>It depends on the context.  For very local variables I tend to favor
>>>one-letter names like i (for iteration), p, q (pointers), n and m
>>>(quantities and sizes).
>>
>> I used to do that but realized that it's a bad habit for a variety of
>> reasons.  (Working in insurance and using APL has a lot to do with it
>> I think).  First, single letter variable names are hard to search on.
>
>But you don't usually search for names which have a scope limited to
>(say) 5--10 lines.

You're assuming that I know in advance that that is the case.

>   (Note the irony, which is typical for coding style discussions: I
>   had to defend using long, descriptive variable names, and now I'm
>   defending using one-letter ones.  Consistency is overrated.)
>
>> So are variable names that form parts of common words.  Second, once
>> the habit develops, it's easy to run out of variable names and end up
>> using "l" (lower case L), which is identical to "1" (one) in many
>> fonts which can lead to very difficult to identify bugs.
>
>Hm, I've never seen that problem arise.  It would indeed be a problem,
>and a symptom of an underlying problem. Generally, I limit the number
>of variables in scope at any given time, because code is harder to get
>wrong when there are few moving parts.

You seem to have learned programming in the era in which "scope"
actually existed.  When I learned, variables were usually global.

>> Third, actuarial science has its share of accepted one letter
>> values--"Q" for example is mortality.
>
>Ok. Well, I didn't mean to suggest my set of names are always
>applicable everywhere.
>
>> Then there's the guy who used Z for whatever was returned by a
>> function, _any_ function..  But somehow Z managed to escape and become
>> globalized, so finding out what changed Z becomes a major undertaking.
>>
>>>  I allow global names to be longer, but look
>>>for ways to abbreviate them too.
>
>/Jorgen