I have a simple question with regards to initializing for loops.
Here is my for loop declaration:
for (int i=player.x-xIndex-1; i<=player.x+xIndex+1; i++)
{
for (int j=player.y-yIndex-1; j<=player.y+yIndex+1; j++)
{
}
}
My question is:
Is it bad practice to have the values of the indices i and j be set to non-static integer values at declaration?
Will the code just evaluate the minimum and maximum values of i and j once at beginning of execution, or will it evaluate those values (i.e. player.x+xIndex+1, etc.) every single time the loop executes.
Any light you guys can shed on my problem would be awesome!
I'm a freakin' amateur, guys. Seriously.
Thanks :D
Not an amateur question at all. The "initialization" expressions are calculated only on the first run through, because of course they're only used that one time.
For the loop's "condition" (the middle expression that is tested at the end of every iteration), in the worst case it can be evaluated every iteration. Because what if (in this case) player.y actually changes during the loop?
However, most modern compilers will likely not compute that whole thing every loop if they can detect that the end value is provably never changing during the loop.
If you wanted to be double sure and manhandle the path of execution, you can explicitly "hoist" the conditional end expression out of the loop yourself, like:
int maxValue = foo.x + y.bar + 12 + myString.length;
for (int i = 0; i < maxValue; i++) {
....
But now the standard style disclaimer: optimizing prematurely can make your code less readable for no provable gains. Unless you're doing real work in that condition expression, or the loop is running bazillions of iterations, some additional computation won't hurt you much, and might be worth keeping so that it's clearer to yourself and others what you're trying to do.
I like to keep the names of my variables short but readable.
Still, when, for example, naming the variable that holds the index of an element in some list, I tend to use elemIndex because I don't know a proper (and universally understood) way of abbreviating the word "index".
Is there a canonic way of abbreviating "index"? Or is it best to spell it in full to avoid misunderstandings?
In my experience it depends on the context. Typically I can tell if something is an index from what it is used for, so I am often more interested in knowing what it is an index of.
My rule of thumb goes roughly like this:
If it is just a loop index in a short loop (e.g.: all fits on screen at once) and the context informs the reader what the index is doing, then you can probably get away with something simple like i.
Example: thresholding an image
//For each pixel in the image, threshold it
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++ ) {
for (int j = 0; j < width; j++) {
if (image[i][j] < 128) {
image[i][j] = 0;
} else {
image[i][j] = 255;
}
}
}
If the code section is larger, or you have multiple indeces going on, indicate which list it is an index into:
File[] files_in_dir = ...;
int num_files = files_in_dir.length();
for (int fileIdx = 0; fileIdx < num_files; fileIdx++) { //for each file in dir.
...
}
If, however the index is actually important to the meaning of the code, then specify it fully, for example:
int imageToDeleteIdx = 3; //index of the image to be deleted.
image_list.delete(imageToDeleteIdx);
However code should be considered "write once, read many" and your effort should be allocated as such; i.e.: lots on the writing, so the reading is easy. To this end, as was mentioned by Brad M, never assume the reader understands your abbreviations. If you are going to use abbreviations, at least declare them in the comments.
Stick to established and well known conventions. If you use common conventions, people will have fewer surprises when they read your code.
Programmers are used to using a lot of conventions from mathematics. E.g. in mathematics we typically label indices:
i, j, k
While e.g. coordinates are referred to with letters such as:
x, y, z
This depends of course on context. E.g. using i to denote some global index would be a terrible idea. Use short names for very local variables and longer names for more global functions and variables, is a good rule of thumb.
For me this style was influenced by Rob Pike, who elaborates more on this here. As someone with an interest in user interface design and experience I've also written more extensively about this.
Premesis:
I am using ActionScript with two arraycollections containing objects with values to be matched...
I need a solution for this (if in the framework there is a library that does it better) otherwise any suggestions are appreciated...
Let's assume I have two lists of elements A and B (no duplicate values) and I need to compare them and remove all the elements present in both, so at the end I should have
in A all the elements that are in A but not in B
in B all the elements that are in B but not in A
now I do something like that:
for (var i:int = 0 ; i < a.length ;)
{
var isFound:Boolean = false;
for (var j:int = 0 ; j < b.length ;)
{
if (a.getItemAt(i).nome == b.getItemAt(j).nome)
{
isFound = true;
a.removeItemAt(i);
b.removeItemAt(j);
break;
}
j++;
}
if (!isFound)
i++;
}
I cycle both the arrays and if I found a match I remove the items from both of the arrays (and don't increase the loop value so the for cycle progress in a correct way)
I was wondering if (and I'm sure there is) there is a better (and less CPU consuming) way to do it...
If you must use a list, and you don't need the abilities of arraycollection, I suggest simply converting it to using AS3 Vectors. The performance increase according to this (http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2008/09/24/actioscript-3-vector-array-performance-comparison/) are 60% compared to Arrays. I believe Arrays are already 3x faster than ArrayCollections from some article I once read. Unfortunately, this solution is still O(n^2) in time.
As an aside, the reason why Vectors are faster than ArrayCollections is because you provide type-hinting to the VM. The VM knows exactly how large each object is in the collection and performs optimizations based on that.
Another optimization on the vectors is to sort the data first by nome before doing the comparisons. You add another check to break out of the loop if the nome of list b simply wouldn't be found further down in list A due to the ordering.
If you want to do MUCH faster than that, use an associative array (object in as3). Of course, this may require more refactoring effort. I am assuming object.nome is a unique string/id for the objects. Simply assign that the value of nome as the key in objectA and objectB. By doing it this way, you might not need to loop through each element in each list to do the comparison.
I have a function that contains two for loops, and I'm using a variable called count as the counter. I've chosen to recycle the name as the the first loop will finish it's execution completely before the second one begins, so there is no chance of the counters interfering with each other. The G++ compiler has taken exception to this via the following warning:
error: name lookup of ‘count’ changed for ISO ‘for’ scoping
note: (if you use ‘-fpermissive’ G++ will accept your code)
Is variable recycling considered bad practice in professional software development, or is it a situational concern, and what other implications have I missed here?
Are you doing this?
for(int count = 0; ...)
{
...
}
for(count = 0; ...)
{
...
}
I doubt gcc would like that, as the second count isn't in scope. I think it only applies to the first for loop, but gcc has options to accept poor code. If you either make the second int count or move the first to the outer scope, gcc should be happy.
This depends on the circumstances, but I generally don't reuse variables. The name of the variable should reflect its purpose, and switching part way through a function can be confusing. Declare what you need, let the compiler take care of the optimizations.
Steve McConnell recommends not reusing local variables in functions in Code Complete.
He's not the definitive voice of practice in professional software development, but he's about as close as you're going to get to a definitive voice.
The argument is that it makes it harder to read the code.
What are you counting? Name the variables after that.
It sounds like you're defining the variable in the for? i.e. "for (int count=0; count++; count < x)"? If so, that could be problematic, as well as unclear. If you're going to use it in a second for loop define it outside both loops.
If you're using a loop counter variables like this, then it usually doesn't matter.
for (int i ...; ... ; ...) {
...
}
for (int i ...; ... ; ...) {
...
}
however, if you're intending to shadow another variable:
int i ...;
for (int i ...; ... ; ...) {
...
}
that's a red flag.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
As far as variable naming conventions go, should iterators be named i or something more semantic like count? If you don't use i, why not? If you feel that i is acceptable, are there cases of iteration where it shouldn't be used?
Depends on the context I suppose. If you where looping through a set of Objects in some
collection then it should be fairly obvious from the context what you are doing.
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
However if it is not immediately clear from the context what it is you are doing, or if you are making modifications to the index you should use a variable name that is more indicative of the usage.
for(int currentRow = 0; currentRow < numRows; currentRow++)
{
for(int currentCol = 0; currentCol < numCols; currentCol++)
{
someTable[currentRow][currentCol] = someValue;
}
}
"i" means "loop counter" to a programmer. There's nothing wrong with it.
Here's another example of something that's perfectly okay:
foreach (Product p in ProductList)
{
// Do something with p
}
I tend to use i, j, k for very localized loops (only exist for a short period in terms of number of source lines). For variables that exist over a larger source area, I tend to use more detailed names so I can see what they're for without searching back in the code.
By the way, I think that the naming convention for these came from the early Fortran language where I was the first integer variable (A - H were floats)?
i is acceptable, for certain. However, I learned a tremendous amount one semester from a C++ teacher I had who refused code that did not have a descriptive name for every single variable. The simple act of naming everything descriptively forced me to think harder about my code, and I wrote better programs after that course, not from learning C++, but from learning to name everything. Code Complete has some good words on this same topic.
i is fine, but something like this is not:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
{
string s = datarow[i][j].ToString(); // or worse
}
}
Very common for programmers to inadvertently swap the i and the j in the code, especially if they have bad eyesight or their Windows theme is "hotdog". This is always a "code smell" for me - it's kind of rare when this doesn't get screwed up.
i is so common that it is acceptable, even for people that love descriptive variable names.
What is absolutely unacceptable (and a sin in my book) is using i,j, or k in any other context than as an integer index in a loop.... e.g.
foreach(Input i in inputs)
{
Process(i);
}
i is definitely acceptable. Not sure what kind of justification I need to make -- but I do use it all of the time, and other very respected programmers do as well.
Social validation, I guess :)
Yes, in fact it's preferred since any programmer reading your code will understand that it's simply an iterator.
What is the value of using i instead of a more specific variable name? To save 1 second or 10 seconds or maybe, maybe, even 30 seconds of thinking and typing?
What is the cost of using i? Maybe nothing. Maybe the code is so simple that using i is fine. But maybe, maybe, using i will force developers who come to this code in the future to have to think for a moment "what does i mean here?" They will have to think: "is it an index, a count, an offset, a flag?" They will have to think: "is this change safe, is it correct, will I be off by 1?"
Using i saves time and intellectual effort when writing code but may end up costing more intellectual effort in the future, or perhaps even result in the inadvertent introduction of defects due to misunderstanding the code.
Generally speaking, most software development is maintenance and extension, so the amount of time spent reading your code will vastly exceed the amount of time spent writing it.
It's very easy to develop the habit of using meaningful names everywhere, and once you have that habit it takes only a few seconds more to write code with meaningful names, but then you have code which is easier to read, easier to understand, and more obviously correct.
I use i for short loops.
The reason it's OK is that I find it utterly implausible that someone could see a declaration of iterator type, with initializer, and then three lines later claim that it's not clear what the variable represents. They're just pretending, because they've decided that "meaningful variable names" must mean "long variable names".
The reason I actually do it, is that I find that using something unrelated to the specific task at hand, and that I would only ever use in a small scope, saves me worrying that I might use a name that's misleading, or ambiguous, or will some day be useful for something else in the larger scope. The reason it's "i" rather than "q" or "count" is just convention borrowed from mathematics.
I don't use i if:
The loop body is not small, or
the iterator does anything other than advance (or retreat) from the start of a range to the finish of the loop:
i doesn't necessarily have to go in increments of 1 so long as the increment is consistent and clear, and of course might stop before the end of the iterand, but if it ever changes direction, or is unmodified by an iteration of the loop (including the devilish use of iterator.insertAfter() in a forward loop), I try to remember to use something different. This signals "this is not just a trivial loop variable, hence this may not be a trivial loop".
If the "something more semantic" is "iterator" then there is no reason not to use i; it is a well understood idiom.
i think i is completely acceptable in for-loop situations. i have always found this to be pretty standard and never really run into interpretation issues when i is used in this instance. foreach-loops get a little trickier and i think really depends on your situation. i rarely if ever use i in foreach, only in for loops, as i find i to be too un-descriptive in these cases. for foreach i try to use an abbreviation of the object type being looped. e.g:
foreach(DataRow dr in datatable.Rows)
{
//do stuff to/with datarow dr here
}
anyways, just my $0.02.
It helps if you name it something that describes what it is looping through. But I usually just use i.
As long as you are either using i to count loops, or part of an index that goes from 0 (or 1 depending on PL) to n, then I would say i is fine.
Otherwise its probably easy to name i something meaningful it its more than just an index.
I should point out that i and j are also mathematical notation for matrix indices. And usually, you're looping over an array. So it makes sense.
As long as you're using it temporarily inside a simple loop and it's obvious what you're doing, sure. That said, is there no other short word you can use instead?
i is widely known as a loop iterator, so you're actually more likely to confuse maintenance programmers if you use it outside of a loop, but if you use something more descriptive (like filecounter), it makes code nicer.
It depends.
If you're iterating over some particular set of data then I think it makes more sense to use a descriptive name. (eg. filecounter as Dan suggested).
However, if you're performing an arbitrary loop then i is acceptable. As one work mate described it to me - i is a convention that means "this variable is only ever modified by the for loop construct. If that's not true, don't use i"
The use of i, j, k for INTEGER loop counters goes back to the early days of FORTRAN.
Personally I don't have a problem with them so long as they are INTEGER counts.
But then I grew up on FORTRAN!
my feeling is that the concept of using a single letter is fine for "simple" loops, however, i learned to use double-letters a long time ago and it has worked out great.
i asked a similar question last week and the following is part of my own answer:// recommended style ● // "typical" single-letter style
●
for (ii=0; ii<10; ++ii) { ● for (i=0; i<10; ++i) {
for (jj=0; jj<10; ++jj) { ● for (j=0; j<10; ++j) {
mm[ii][jj] = ii * jj; ● m[i][j] = i * j;
} ● }
} ● }
in case the benefit isn't immediately obvious: searching through code for any single letter will find many things that aren't what you're looking for. the letter i occurs quite often in code where it isn't the variable you're looking for.
i've been doing it this way for at least 10 years.
note that plenty of people commented that either/both of the above are "ugly"...
I am going to go against the grain and say no.
For the crowd that says "i is understood as an iterator", that may be true, but to me that is the equivalent of comments like 'Assign the value 5 to variable Y. Variable names like comment should explain the why/what not the how.
To use an example from a previous answer:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Is it that much harder to just use a meaningful name like so?
for(int objectCollectionIndex = 0; objectCollectionIndex < 10; objectCollectionIndex ++)
{
objectCollection[objectCollectionIndex].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Granted the (borrowed) variable name objectCollection is pretty badly named too.