Re: Meaningful parameters.

["Erik Jessen" <ejessen at adelphia dot net>]

I sure like longer (unique) variable names, even for iteration variables
(instead of 'i'), because it's a lot easier to do a 'find' to find all all
places
it gets used.

It just makes the code a lot easier to maintain for someone other than
the original writer.   :)

Erik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kingdon" <kingdon@panix.com>
To: <sutton@t-surf.com>
Cc: <ejessen@adelphia.net>; <xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Meaningful parameters.


> > the pointer to the unit which receives the extracted material I call
> > 'extractor', and when the id of the unit is needed, I've changed the
> > name to 'extractor_ut' from 'u2' to disginguish the pointer from the
> > unit type. Maybe 'extractor_u' would be better?
>
> I've been using "uextractor" (don't remember if I saw that somewhere
> or just made it up) but extractor_type or extractor_utype or any of
> the ones don't horrify me.  Although I suppose it should be some
> combination of "extractor" and "u".
>
> Thanks for doing this work.
>
> > I also changed 'unit3' used in the stack iteration to 'stack_unit',
> > although 'stacked_unit" might be better.
>
> I'd be tempted to call it "i" - the universal symbol for an iteration
> variable.
>
> > Thee is already some consistancy, unit pointers are almost always
> > 'unit', but unit types are almost always 'u'.
>
> Right, let's try to build on that except where it is clearly broken
> (e.g. the infamous unit, unit2, unit3 case).
>