maxphysaddr
say. An array index used on every line of a loop needn't be named
any more elaborately than
i.
Saying
index
or
elementnumber
is more to type (or calls upon your text editor) and obscures
the details of the computation.
When the variable names are huge, it's harder to see what's going on.
This is partly a typographic issue; consider
for(i=0 to 100)
array[i]=0
vs.
for(elementnumber=0 to 100)
array[elementnumber]=0;
The problem gets worse fast with real examples. Indices are just notation, so treat them as such.
Pointers also require sensible notation.
np
is just as mnemonic as
nodepointer
if
you consistently use a naming convention from which
np
means ``node pointer'' is easily derived.
More on this in the next essay.
As in all other aspects of readable programming, consistency is important
in naming. If you call one variable
maxphysaddr,
don't call its cousin
lowestaddress.
Finally, I prefer minimum-length but maximum-information names, and
then let the context fill in the rest.
Globals, for instance, typically have little context when they are used,
so their names need to be relatively evocative. Thus I say
maxphysaddr
(not
MaximumPhysicalAddress)
for a global variable, but
np
not
NodePointer
for a pointer locally defined and used.
This is largely a matter of taste, but taste is relevant to clarity.
I eschew embedded capital letters in names; to my prose-oriented eyes, they are too awkward to read comfortably. They jangle like bad typography.
Contents
Issues of typography
The use of pointers.