You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
30 points

A useful tip I picked up was to use ii instead of j for an inner loop. It’s far more distinct than j.

If for some terrible reason you have even more inner loops you can easily continue the trend i, ii, iii, iiii, iiiii - or iv, v if you’re feeling roman

permalink
report
reply
1 point

When you have multiple indices you’re also bound to have multiple cardinals those indices count up to, say foo.length and bar.length, so foo_i and bar_i are perfectly legible and self-documenting. A bit Hungarian but Hungarian is good in small amounts. Unless you’re dealing with width and height in which case it’s x and y but it’s not that width_i would be incomprehensible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

At this point we might as well go full Roman as you suggested. MXMCIIV to MXMCCVII as indices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I just do i2, i3, etc

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Becomes unreadable if you’re using the iter values a lot

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Two or three "i"s is readable, but any more and you’re counting.
I’Ve started using i, k, m, n that’s usually enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

If you have the need to nest 5 levels of for-loops, I suggest taking a step back and rethinking your approach, my friend.

Even if that other approach is just refactoring it into separate methods.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

Create post

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

  • Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
  • No NSFW content.
  • Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

Community stats

  • 3.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.5K

    Posts

  • 35K

    Comments