On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 07:47 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Stathis,
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 06:19, rouvas wrote:
...
And it's also a very good idea to use a loop variable name that means _something_.
i = index, plenty of meaning :-)
You make my point, exactly. It is _not_ and index!
Practical, running, production _real_ software is quite a different thing than an isolated algorithm illustrated in a book, where i, j, k and other such meaningless identifiers are acceptable because: 1) There's little or no other code to confuse things; 2) There's a great deal of explanatory and supporting text surrounding the exposition of the algorithm.
Not to mention that using a name schema that directly relates to what you intend to do, or or doing, makes revisiting things later much easier when you have to figure out what is what. This applies to things where you can assert any kind of name in order to achieve a result. (The CAM software we use allows you to specify a name for certain things which control where the software will operate on any given surface of a solid model. Using the defaults is very undescriptive, and when you have three people working on one job, mind reading becomes a must. I rarely use the defaults and can normally come back to a job two weeks later and pick up right where I have left off with only a review of what I have done, bypassing the what was I trying to do here phase.) Mike