3 ms·

Point taken that it is ok to use i, x, y, z sometimes (eg. when iterating), but the notion 'a meaningless parameter that is just a variable' doesn't really exis

Point taken that it is ok to use i, x, y, z sometimes (eg. when iterating), but the notion 'a meaningless parameter that is just a variable' doesn't really exist... if it's meaningless, why are you saving it? Only other use case I can think of is doing metaprogramming or some sort of templating where you have a variable, but might no even know what it represents, because it isn't your concern.

marcosdumay 7y ago
> if it's meaningless, why are you saving it? Because you are writing abstract code. Odds are that a lot of your code is better done abstract, and only fully specified in a short context.
mrgriffin 7y ago
What about implementing something like map for lists? You know literally nothing about the values and the function except for their types. map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] map f [] = [] map f (a:as) = f a : map f as Personally I don't see any reason to use longer names than f, a, and as because you can't add any additional information. You might say "well I don't write code like that", and I don't have any answer for you. But I find I write a fair amount of generic code.
- chalst 7y ago
  > you can't add any additional information Well you could... map transforming_function (element:rest_of_list) = transforming_function element : map transforming_function rest_of_list ...but the cost in terms of loss of brevity would far outweigh a benefit that would only accrue to complete beginners, who would be better served by comments and test cases.
Firadeoclus 7y ago
A variable can be a substitute for a longer expression for which a name/description is unnecessary because the expression itself is self-explanatory. The substitution with a (essentially meaningless) short name just makes repeated use of that expression more readable. Using a long, descriptive name would defeat the point.

marcosdumay 7y ago

> if it's meaningless, why are you saving it? Because you are writing abstract code. Odds are that a lot of your code is better done abstract, and only fully specified in a short context.

mrgriffin 7y ago

What about implementing something like map for lists? You know literally nothing about the values and the function except for their types. map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] map f [] = [] map f (a:as) = f a : map f as Personally I don't see any reason to use longer names than f, a, and as because you can't add any additional information. You might say "well I don't write code like that", and I don't have any answer for you. But I find I write a fair amount of generic code.

chalst 7y ago
> you can't add any additional information Well you could... map transforming_function (element:rest_of_list) = transforming_function element : map transforming_function rest_of_list ...but the cost in terms of loss of brevity would far outweigh a benefit that would only accrue to complete beginners, who would be better served by comments and test cases.

Firadeoclus 7y ago

A variable can be a substitute for a longer expression for which a name/description is unnecessary because the expression itself is self-explanatory. The substitution with a (essentially meaningless) short name just makes repeated use of that expression more readable. Using a long, descriptive name would defeat the point.