Neil Cerutti a écrit : > 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 not sure this is really an "advantage" here. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
