On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 22:08:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't speak for the compiler devs, but IMO, one-letter
variables are OK if they are local, and cover a relatively
small scope.
By saying more descriptive I should have clarified that I meant
to change them to 3-7 letter names. Small variable names are ok
for small functions like the one in attrib.d called void
importAll(Scope* sc). It has variable named sc and its clear
where it is used.
Now for all of you who think that one letter variables are ok
here is exercise. Go and open src/dmd/func.d with your favorite
code editor. Find function FuncDeclaration resolveFuncCall(). Its
around 170 LOC long. Now find all uses of variable Dsymbol s. Did
you found them all? Are you sure? Ok now do the same for variable
loc. See the difference?
Java-style verbosity IMO makes code *harder* to read because
the verbosity gets > in your face, crowding out the more
interesting (and important) larger picture of code structure.
What editor do you use?
Here is the worst example to prove my point but its still
sufficient. All editors worth your time highlights the same text
when selected and here is example of one letter variable.
https://imgur.com/a/jjxCdmh
and tree letter variable
https://imgur.com/a/xOqbkmn
where is all that crowding and loss of large picture you speak
of? Its the opposite. Code structure is more clear with longer
variable names than one letter.
As Walter said in his recent talk, the length of variable names
(or identifiers in general, really) should roughly correspond
to their scope
At best this is argument form authority. You said how thing
should be not why. For argument sake imagine situation where you
need to expand function. By your proposed rules you should rename
local variables to longer names. Thats ridiculous. Yes I watched
that presentation and fully disagree with Walter and know for
sure he doesnt have sound argument to support his position.
