Squeak coding style...
Colin Putney
cputney at wiresong.ca
Tue Mar 2 15:03:38 UTC 2004
On Feb 29, 2004, at 1:49 PM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Dan Ingalls <Dan at SqueakLand.org> wrote:
>> PS: On the topic of variable names, I happen to oppose the "aString"
>> style of variable naming except when you really can't think of
>> anything better. I feel a variable should be typed by its type, and
>> named by its role (ie "boxCount" instead of "anInteger".
>> Unfortunately we don't have a type inference system and a button to
>> show the types when we want them. Me, I'm going to keep naming by
>> role, and encouraging work on type inference.
>
> I agree with this. I would only use "aString" if I couldn't come up
> with
> something better which is "role based". But I still think the general
> pattern of "aString" is better than "string".
I think Stéphane made an important point that's been overlooked. I
hadn't thought about it before, but I now notice that I too
differentiate between arguments to a message and temps and ivars. With
temps and ivars, I always use a role based name. But for arguments, the
role is given by the keyword in the selector, so I use a
type-indicating name. This is especially useful for accessor methods,
because the ivar will have a role-based name, and so one *must* choose
a different name for the argument. Describing the same role differently
is redundant, but describing the type provides more information. For
example, I find this:
name: aString
name := aString
preferable to this:
name: theName
name := theName
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|