Re: Re: Switch - Case Statement Questions

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/11/17 Andrew Ballard <aballard@gmail.com> > >> On Nov 16, 2012 10:24 PM, "tamouse mailing lists" <tamouse.lists@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Just a tad obscure for someone coming along >> > later >> >> Without knowing the intent of the code, it could be a headache to maintain. >> > Interesting, that you see 5 lines of code and assume, that nobody will ever > get the intent of this code ;) Of course the context is missing. I guess, > that "$count" is something like "remaining days", or such, because > "7" and > "14" look like "one week" and "two weeks", respectively. Thus I > wouldn't > name the variable "$count" [1], but "$remainingDays" and voila: Context is > back and so is the intent :) This was actually the thrust of my remark about obscurity. I could easily see how the refactored algorithm worked from the original code's algorithm. What was obscure was exactly the variable name $count, i.e., the meaning of the data driving the algorithm. When you know the actual meaning of data being used, the obscurity goes away. Hence: useful variable names. Again, well done, Seb.