Does “variables should live in the smallest scope as possible” include the case “variables should not exist if possible”?2019 Community Moderator ElectionRationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?Is it OK to use dynamic typing to reduce the amount of variables in scope?How to deal with variables when extracting methods in to smaller methods?How to refactor a Python “god class”?Should a structure be refactored into smaller structures?How to refactor my project to have less mutable objects?Is Java package level scope useful?How do you safely refactor in a language with dynamic scope?Should I unit test the consuming class or the class running the logic?How to not test implementation when method returns void?Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?

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”?



2019 Community Moderator ElectionRationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?Is it OK to use dynamic typing to reduce the amount of variables in scope?How to deal with variables when extracting methods in to smaller methods?How to refactor a Python “god class”?Should a structure be refactored into smaller structures?How to refactor my project to have less mutable objects?Is Java package level scope useful?How do you safely refactor in a language with dynamic scope?Should I unit test the consuming class or the class running the logic?How to not test implementation when method returns void?Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?










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?










share|improve this question

















  • 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















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?










share|improve this question

















  • 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













1












1








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?










share|improve this question














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













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









mmmaaammmaaa

2,68741724




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












  • 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







3




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





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










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




















  • 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










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


















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















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






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




















  • 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















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




















  • 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













5












5








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















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














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









Robert HarveyRobert Harvey

166k41380595




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












  • 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







1




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





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

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Software Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














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















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Do these spellcasting foci from Xanathar's Guide to Everything have to be held in a hand?How do foci and somatic+material components interact when it comes to occupying a hand?Can you cast spells with a Somatic component if you're holding a two-handed weapon?Crafting an Improvised Spellcasting Focus?Can a multiclass Cleric/Warlock hold a Holy Shield and an Arcane Staff and still cast spells?Where should I report printing errors in Xanathar's Guide to Everything?Where can I purchase a legal Xanathar's Guide to Everything PDF?Can I use a hand holding a focus from one class to cover somatic components for a spell from another class?Do you need a “gameplay-wise” free hand to handle material components?Portent, as it relates to the Gambling downtime rules from Xanathar's Guide to EverythingWhat is the correct interpretation of the Gambling Results table in Xanathar's Guide to Everything?

Can I stretch or expand an entire standalone document to fit the page? The Next CEO of Stack Overflow

Why do some congregations only make noise at certain occasions of Haman?Purim and Shushan PurimParashat TzavSource to make noise when Haman's name is mentioned?Does anyone say not to make noise for Haman?Why is Megillat Esther the only one to receive a bracha after reading it?Why did Haman change his mind and decide to immediately hang Mordechai?Chazal empty barrels make the most noiseWhy is Megillat Esther the only Megillah that is still read from parchment?Why is v'acharei added in some siddurim?is there some significance in their relationship between Haman and Daniel?Why is only Purim to be celebrated “forever”?Why didn't Haman just kill Mordechai?