On 2007-06-08, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Cerutti a écrit : >> On 2007-06-06, Bruno Desthuilliers >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Neil Cerutti a écrit : >>>> On 2007-06-04, Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: >>>>> I agree with Bruno that i and j should be used only for >>>>> indices, but I'm usually less terse than that. >>>> I find i and j preferable to overly generic terms like "item." >>> Since 'i' and 'j' are canonically loop indices, I find it >>> totally confusing to use them to name the iteration variable - >>> which is not an index. >>> >>> At least, 'item' suggests that it's an object, and a part of >>> the collection - not just an index you'll have to use to >>> subscript the container. Also, and as far as I'm concerned, I >>> certainly dont find 'i' and 'j' *less* generic than 'item' !-) >> >> Thanks, I didn't say clearly what I meant. >> >> Certainly i and j are just as generic, but they have the >> advantage over 'item' of being more terse. > > I'm not sure this is really an "advantage" here.
Why not? -- Neil Cerutti Beethoven's symphonies had more balls, if you will, than say a Mozart. --Music Lit Essay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
