Does “variables should live in the smallest scope as possible” include the case “variables should not...

How to detect if C code (which needs 'extern C') is compiled in C++

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

In the late 1940’s to early 1950’s what technology was available that could melt a LOT of ice?

What problems would a superhuman have whose skin is constantly hot?

Shifting between bemols (flats) and diesis (sharps)in the key signature

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

Of what use is Arcane Recovery to an Elf Wizard?

How many characters using PHB rules does it take to be able to have access to any PHB spell at the start of an adventuring day?

Why does Captain Marvel assume the people on this planet know this?

Reversed Sudoku

Do items de-spawn in Diablo?

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

Why does the negative sign arise in this thermodynamic relation?

weren't playing vs didn't play

Vocabulary for giving just numbers, not a full answer

Does the nature of the Apocalypse in The Umbrella Academy change from the first to the last episode?

What Happens when Passenger Refuses to Fly Boeing 737 Max?

How to fix the Unknown Command error caused by starting CmdInit.cmd using TCC/LE?

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned

They call me Inspector Morse

Do f-stop and exposure time perfectly cancel?

UART pins to unpowered MCU?

Why would one plane in this picture not have gear down yet?

Are there historical instances of the capital of a colonising country being temporarily or permanently shifted to one of its colonies?



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 3 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

Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

Simple Scan not detecting my scanner (Brother DCP-7055W)Brother MFC-L2700DW printer can print, can't...