On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:31:17AM +0000, Guido Trotter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let me try to explain in words what is happening, and you can then > > suggest a better name: > > > > - at first, we have old_pnode on which the instance lives, and new_pnode > > on which the instance will live > > - we "remove" the instance from its old_pnode, which gives us the new > > version of the old_pnode, which I called old_pnode' > > - we "add" the instance to its new_pnode, which gives us the new version > > of new_pnode, called new_pnode' > > > > I thought of calling them old_pnode, old_pnode_after_remove, new_pnode, > > new_pnode_after_add, but this seemed a bit "silly". > > > > I'm fine with any names, for the record, just don't know how to name > > them nicely. > > > > I'm fine with ' as long as it's clear what we mean. > Perhaps we can document in our styleguide when and how to use ' > variables? (as the new state of an entity after a transformation > happening inside a function).
Yes, definitely - I picked this naming style up from the fact that it is indeed the customary use. I'll update the wiki then, thanks! iustin
