• StudioLE@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • hstde@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • exu@feditown.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Gork@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.