3 ms·
i and j etc is bad though, but for a different reason than usually claimed. it's suboptimal because it's hard to search for. just use ii, jj, kk, etc
by npstr 5mo ago
i and j etc is bad though, but for a different reason than usually claimed. it's suboptimal because it's hard to search for. just use ii, jj, kk, etc
- nemetroid 5mo ago\<i\>
- ajuc 5mo agoIf you need to search for a variable named i - you should have named it something else (and no, jj is NOT an improvement in that case). One letter variables are supposed to be used in scopes that fit on the screen completely. You might as well search for "for" TL; DR: it's on purpose.
- xorcist 5mo agoAlso the fact that every search function since the dawn of interactive computing can search for whole words only (like -w in grep or C-w in emacs).
- SoftTalker 5mo ago> One letter variables are supposed to be used in scopes that fit on the screen completely. Exactly, and ideally in less space than that. If you have something like: for (i=0; i<10; i++) { foo(i); bar(i); } There is no point in using a "descriptive" name for the index. It's completely obvious what's going on. Anything more verbose would just hamper readability.