On 2007-06-06, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Cerutti a écrit : >> On 2007-06-04, Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: >>> I agree with Bruno that i and j should be used only for >>> indices, but I'm usually less terse than that. >> >> I find i and j preferable to overly generic terms like "item." > > Since 'i' and 'j' are canonically loop indices, I find it > totally confusing to use them to name the iteration variable - > which is not an index. > > At least, 'item' suggests that it's an object, and a part of > the collection - not just an index you'll have to use to > subscript the container. Also, and as far as I'm concerned, I > certainly dont find 'i' and 'j' *less* generic than 'item' !-)
Thanks, I didn't say clearly what I meant. Certainly i and j are just as generic, but they have the advantage over 'item' of being more terse. I'm in the habit of letting context indicates wether i is a contained object or a subscript. The advantage of a terse, one-letter name is how it draws attention to context, rather than itself. But it's a small distinction. I wouldn't call 'item' a bad choice. -- Neil Cerutti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
