From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: "John Floren" <john@jfloren.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:20:04 -0800
Message-ID: <51f1e63c93964ae652bc2d38be222af4@lvoc.net>
In-Reply-To: <86vcoif5f4.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
References: <86vcoif5f4.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9/plan9port coding conventions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5832d8ee-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


> (1) For example, P9 code tends to use variable names like "i" and "j",
> where I would typically use self-documenting variable names like "row"
> and "col".  Variable names like "row" and "col" are much easier to
> search for (i.e., with a right-click), too.  Names like "i" and "j"
> (which occur in many identifiers) will generate many false positives.

If everyone in the world uses i and j as row/column indexes into
arrays, aren't they self-documenting?

One reason is that in FORTRAN, identifiers that began with I
through...  N? were automatically integers.  Thus, I and J were easy.
There may be a good reason for that, I've heard that it came from
quaternions but that may be false.


John