François Pinard wrote:
I know that
[modules] exist, despite
is evanescent, but they surely forced users at choosing other
identifiers wherestring' and `socket' would have been perfect.
I would suggest that bare type names are rarely appropriate for use a variable names, except in toy examples.
Or small enough functions. Small functions are not necessarily toys.
If I'm reading someone else's code, and they create a string or a socket, I want to know what it is _for_, rather than the mere fact this it is a string or a socket.
If I write a function receiving a string as an argument, and the effect
of the function being already documented, I see no point writing
parameter_string' orthe_argument_of_the_function' instead of
string', which is clear, clean and simple. Some people would writes'
instead, but for one, I stopped overly liking algebraic notation in
programs after I left FORTRAN :-). When you speak to someone else about
the argument of a simple function, don't you say "then the function
takes the string, it massages the string this way, etc.". I like naming
my variables the way I would speak about them! :-)
If the type is all that is important, then prepending some simple word such as 'a_string' or 'the_string' or 'my_string' makes it clear to the maintainer that the object doesn't really have any significant semantic meaning beyond its type.
Come on, be serious! :-)
-- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard