Gdtyjr

Multi tool use

How to write ı (i without dot) character in pgf-pie

Latex does not go to next line

Can one live in the U.S. and not use a credit card?

Distinction between apt-cache and dpkg -l

'The literal of type int is out of range' con número enteros pequeños (2 dígitos)

Bash script should only kill those instances of another script's that it has launched

Is it necessary to separate DC power cables and data cables?

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned

What Happens when Passenger Refuses to Fly Boeing 737 Max?

Motivation for Zeta Function of an Algebraic Variety

When traveling to Europe from North America, do I need to purchase a different power strip?

Is it "Vierergruppe" or "Viergruppe", or is there a distinction?

Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?

What are the threaded holes in Manfrotto camera brackets?

How can The Temple of Elementary Evil reliably protect itself against kinetic bombardment?

Why does the negative sign arise in this thermodynamic relation?

UART pins to unpowered MCU?

Recommendation letter by significant other if you worked with them professionally?

How did Alan Turing break the enigma code using the hint given by the lady in the bar?

Do items de-spawn in Diablo?

What does "the touch of the purple" mean?

How do I express some one as a black person?

Database Backup for data and log files

Good for you! in Russian

Does “variables should live in the smallest scope as possible” include the case “variables should not exist if possible”?

1

According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:

public class Main
 private A a;
 private B b;

 public ABResult getResult()
 getA();
 getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

into something like this:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 A a=getA();
 B b=getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?

refactoring scope local-variable

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.
  
  – Jared Goguen
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:

public class Main
 private A a;
 private B b;

 public ABResult getResult()
 getA();
 getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

into something like this:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 A a=getA();
 B b=getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?

refactoring scope local-variable

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Creating explicit variables comes with the benefit of having to name them. Introducing a few variables can quickly turn an opaque method into a readable one.
  
  – Jared Goguen
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

According to https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/388055/248528, variables should live in the smallest scope as possible, simplify the problem into my interpretation, it means we should refactor this kind of code:

public class Main
 private A a;
 private B b;

 public ABResult getResult()
 getA();
 getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

into something like this:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 A a=getA();
 B b=getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

but according to the "spirit" of "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible", isn't "never have variables" have smaller scope than "have variables"? So I think the version above should be refactored:

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

so that getResult() doesn't have any local variables at all. Is that true?

refactoring scope local-variable

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

public class Main
 private A a;
 private B b;

 public ABResult getResult()
 getA();
 getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 A a=getA();
 B b=getB();
 return ABFactory.mix(a,b);
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

public class Main
 public ABResult getResult()
 return ABFactory.mix(getA(),getB());
 

 private getA()
 a=SomeFactory.getA();
 

 private getB()
 b=SomeFactory.getB();
 

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

share|improve this question

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

asked 4 hours ago

mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

5

No. There are several reasons why:

1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.


2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.


3. Caching.


4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.

And so on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!
  
  – Maybe_Factor
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "131"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f388435%2fdoes-variables-should-live-in-the-smallest-scope-as-possible-include-the-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

5

No. There are several reasons why:

1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.


2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.


3. Caching.


4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.

And so on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!
  
  – Maybe_Factor
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

No. There are several reasons why:

1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.


2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.


3. Caching.


4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.

And so on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also worth mentioning: The value is going to be stored in memory regardless, so it actually ends up with the same scope anyway. May as well name it(for the reasons Robert mentions above)!
  
  – Maybe_Factor
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

No. There are several reasons why:

1. Variables with meaningful names can make code easier to comprehend.


2. Breaking up complex formulas into smaller steps can make the code easier to read.


3. Caching.


4. Holding references to objects so that they can be used more than once.

And so on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595

answered 2 hours ago

Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595