On Tuesday 22 November 2005 17:47, 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!
Hey, it was intended as a humorous comment!!! BTW, as much as I agree with your comments below, in the context of the script "i" was appearing, it could indeed mean "index", as in "index in the availiable variables". Alternatively, it could be named "v" as in "variable".
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.
Hell, yeah! There are alll sorts of self explanatory names to be used, such as "foo", "goo", "fubar", "tmp", "mispiwoso", "gpp", "route66", "forty_two", "ncc1501a" , etc. Why invent new ones? -Stathis
-Stathis
Randall Schulz