Hi, I'm not sure that short variables names affect readability when long mathematical formulas are used. sometimes, code concision can help in understanding what code does: depending on what you can read and understand at a glance. Readability should be in a place between concision and verbose, depending on the threated topic.
that can be discussed, but this should not prevent from merging GA's works. +1 for merging it now. Le 24/10/2011 15:26, Eric Douglas a écrit : > Short variable names should use less memory, which is mostly irrelevant > these days. > In an open project where other people could be working on the same code > (or other code in the same package) it helps if all names are consistant. > Personally I could never figure out what variable naming conventions > are. Each class I write seems to provide reason to use an entirely new > convention. > As long as someone who has never seen your code before can determine the > purpose of each variable, I'd say you're good. > If that requires comments, definitely add comments. When in doubt, comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] > *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 9:06 AM > *To:* fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Georg Datterl <georg.datt...@geneon.de > <mailto:georg.datt...@geneon.de>> wrote: > > Hello Glenn, > > > (2) there is no standard for symbol length documented in FOP practice > > or enforced by checkstyle; I decline to exchange my choice of symbols > > with longer symbols simply because you prefer it that way; I have > > offered to add comments to my uses, and that is the most I'm willing > > to do to address this matter; > > You probably spent more years programming than I am alive, so please > excuse me if that’s a stupid question: What is the > reasoning/advantage behind those short variable names? > > > First, I don't use short names everywhere. Mostly I just use in local > variables, but generally not as class variables. > > Second, I was trained in Physics and Mathematics, which uses short > variable names (E = M C ^ 2). > > Third, I started programming in the 1960s with BAL 360, APL, then > FORTRAN IV. We use short names there. > > Fourth, I happen to have a good memory and I have no trouble remembering > the meaning of variable names. > > Fifth, I find that short names prevents making lines too long and gives > me more room for comments. > > Sixth, I am going to be maintaining this code. If anyone has a problem > with specific code during a merge or regression, they merely need ask me. > > Seventh, that's just my style, and I assert it is as valid as doing it > with long names. > > Eighth, asking me to adhere to an undocumented convention that is not > otherwise enforced, and for which there is no evidence or analysis of > having been previously followed in FOP contributions is unwarranted. > > Ninth, spending time changing variable names is a waste of time when I > could be working on adding support for other scripts. > > I can probably throw in a few more random reasons, but this should be > sufficient. > > I've offered to add comments, take it or leave it. > -- Pascal
