3 ms·

You make it sound so difficult, but in my experience it hardly ever comes up in practice. When it does, rather than naming things obscurely I can just tack a te

You make it sound so difficult, but in my experience it hardly ever comes up in practice. When it does, rather than naming things obscurely I can just tack a temp_ or local_ or something else descriptive on the front.

jeltz 4y ago
When I used Zig I ran into this all the time in practice when using iterators. It is the combination of that you cannot nicely create a locally scoped iterator and that Zig forbids shadowing. Specifically this kind of code (and I do not feel calling them e.g. iter1 and iter2 or foo_iter and bar_iter make the code nice): var iter1 = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter1.next()) |entry| { // Do something } var iter2 = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter2.next()) |entry| { // Do something else }
- messe 4y ago
  At the moment, the recommended solution for that is to use a block scope. { var iter = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } } { var iter = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } }
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Being clear about things is one of Zig's central philosophies, if naming things `foo_iter` and `bar_iter` doesn't feel like the right solution then maybe the language isn't a good fit for you. But also: var iter = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } iter = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something else } You can totally just reassign `iter` here since you're done with the first iterator (assuming they are both the same type, which appears to be the case).
  - jeltz 4y ago
    I do not think long variable names is very clear. What is clear is locally scoped ones and there I feel Zig has some deficiencies which makes it unnecessarily cumbersome to have locally scoped iterators.
cztomsik 4y ago
It's accidental complexity. There's an artificial limitation which you need to work around. What you get back is very questionable, I certainly don't remember when it was last time I've messed up the scoping, if ever.

jeltz 4y ago

When I used Zig I ran into this all the time in practice when using iterators. It is the combination of that you cannot nicely create a locally scoped iterator and that Zig forbids shadowing. Specifically this kind of code (and I do not feel calling them e.g. iter1 and iter2 or foo_iter and bar_iter make the code nice): var iter1 = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter1.next()) |entry| { // Do something } var iter2 = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter2.next()) |entry| { // Do something else }

messe 4y ago
At the moment, the recommended solution for that is to use a block scope. { var iter = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } } { var iter = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } }
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Being clear about things is one of Zig's central philosophies, if naming things `foo_iter` and `bar_iter` doesn't feel like the right solution then maybe the language isn't a good fit for you. But also: var iter = foo_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something } iter = bar_dir.iterate(); while (try iter.next()) |entry| { // Do something else } You can totally just reassign `iter` here since you're done with the first iterator (assuming they are both the same type, which appears to be the case).
- jeltz 4y ago
  I do not think long variable names is very clear. What is clear is locally scoped ones and there I feel Zig has some deficiencies which makes it unnecessarily cumbersome to have locally scoped iterators.

cztomsik 4y ago

It's accidental complexity. There's an artificial limitation which you need to work around. What you get back is very questionable, I certainly don't remember when it was last time I've messed up the scoping, if ever.