From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2078dddcdcd8d83
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign
 help!!]
Date: 1997/05/16
Message-ID: <dewar.863817034@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 242011227
References: <5kjvcv$evt@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw> <5kn8ko$jcc@top.mitre.org>
 <1997May7.201035.2439@nosc.mil> <33727EEA.2092@sprintmail.com>
 <5kuf1j$17vi@uni.library.ucla.edu> <3373666A.31DFF4F5@spam.innocon.com>
 <3373EAB5.73A0@sprintmail.com> <dewar.863298747@merv>
 <87C44AD748359DF0.5E24E5EEBAEC0D8B.B6219AA25FB36D5D@library-proxy.airnews.net>
 <5li577$ur4@castor.cca.rockwell.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Wayne says

<<Good point.  It is a matter of degree and scope.  Single letter variable
names are very appropriate in certain contexts.  For example, I use them
extensively as FOR loop variables, since it usually has no meaning other
than to count which iteration we are on.>>

Certainly that's reasonable for small loops. However in the GNAT style
standards, we do not permit the use of the variable I, since in a
sans-serif font, it is too easily mixed up with the digit 1. The single
letter O is a bad choice for similar reasons.

(amusing completely irrelevant anecdote. This morning I called up UA and
asked them to locate a record, I gave the locator as

Tango-Zero-Echo-Echo-Boy-Queen

The agent couldn't find it ...

she was looking for T0EEBQ

my locator was TZEEBQ

:-)