horpner at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 8 14:06:57 CEST 2007
On 2007-06-08, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
> Neil Cerutti a écrit :
>> On 2007-06-06, Bruno Desthuilliers
>> <bruno.42.desthuilliers at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
>>> Neil Cerutti a écrit :
>>>> On 2007-06-04, Michael Hoffman <cam.ac.uk at mh391.invalid> 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.
Beethoven's symphonies had more balls, if you will, than say a Mozart. --Music
More information about the Python-list