[bug#58812] [bug#59164] Coding style: similarly-named variables

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 18:37, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>> It's a pattern I've used at other places; I find it more hygienic to not
>>> shadow existing variables; it signal to the reader "be careful, this is
>>> not the same as the argument-bound one, though they are closely
>>> related".
>>
>> I don’t buy it.  :-)  The reader might be careful yet end up using the
>> “wrong” variable.  As long as the “wrong” variable has no use, I think
>> it’s best to shadow it so that mistakes cannot happen.
>>
>> Of course the details vary depending on context, but I think we should
>> not start introducing this pattern in different places.  Perhaps
>> something to discuss and codify under “Formatting Code”?
>
> I agree with Ludo.  For another instance than target*, the previous was,
>
>            ((new '-> old)
> [...]
> -                 (symlink old (string-append target new)))
> [...]
> -                       (delete-file (string-append target new))
>
>
> then replaced by,
>
>            ((new '-> old)
> [...]
> +           (let ((new* (string-append target* new)))
> [...]
> +                         (error (format #f "symlink `~a' points to 
> nonexistent \
> +file `~a'" new* old)))))
> +                   (symlink old new*))

The intent was to keep away from the following imperative style, which
hurts both readability and debuggability in my opinion:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(let* ((my-target "something")
       (my-target (mutate-once my-target))
       (my-target (mutate-twice my-target)))
 (do-something-with my-target))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Perhaps the problem at hand would benefit being broken down in smaller
chunks, to avoid having a page-full of code sharing the same scope.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim