4 ms·

This is silly. The variable types are already giving you exactly this information. Why would you add a "p" when you already have the "*"? Likewise, size_t tells

This is silly. The variable types are already giving you exactly this information. Why would you add a "p" when you already have the "*"? Likewise, size_t tells you that this is a size, no need for the "n". Instead, the variable names should be used to convey information that the types alone can't convey.

chjj 5y ago
> Likewise, size_t tells you that this is a size, no need for the "n". How do you differentiate the two input lengths? If I were to rename `xp` to `x` and `xn` to `n`, what should `yn` be renamed to? At the very least, there's going to need to be a `yn` somewhere. It's very common for code to include the type when there are two inputs to a function (even when written more verbosely): e.g. `thing_len`, and `other_thing_len`. The `p`-suffix convention can also save you in a situation like this: int x = 1; int *xp = &x; int y = 1; int *yp = &y; It avoids naming collisions, and further down in the function, you'll be able to differentiate the pointer and the value. I find it very useful. If you write multi-precision integer code in C[1] without this convention, you will end up with an unreadable mess. I certainly wish Torbjörn Granlund were here to testify to this. [1] https://github.com/chjj/mako/blob/master/src/mpi.c https://github.com/chjj/mako/blob/master/src/mpi.c