On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:29:25PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: >> 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! > > Wiki updated, please take a look :) >
Thanks. This makes it clearer although I'm not sure we should allow "that many" updated values, as it'd be almost a way of "working around" some language functionality. So I'd be even more strict into limiting them. But at least now it's clear, thanks. Guido
