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

Are tamper resistant receptacles really safer?

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

How to draw cubes in a 3 dimensional plane

What's the "normal" opposite of flautando?

Conservation of Mass and Energy

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

What Happens when Passenger Refuses to Fly Boeing 737 Max?

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

Doesn't allowing a user mode program to access kernel space memory and execute the IN and OUT instructions defeat the purpose of having CPU modes?

Why doesn't this Google Translate ad use the word "Translation" instead of "Translate"?

Does "Until when" sound natural for native speakers?

Intuition behind counterexample of Euler's sum of powers conjecture

UART pins to unpowered MCU?

Database Backup for data and log files

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

Do items de-spawn in Diablo?

Accepted offer letter, position changed

Should I take out a loan for a friend to invest on my behalf?

Difference on montgomery curve equation between EFD and RFC7748

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

PTIJ: Should I kill my computer after installing software?

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

Why was Goose renamed from Chewie for the Captain Marvel film?

PTIJ: wiping amalek’s memory?



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 3 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

El tren de la libertad Índice Antecedentes "Porque yo decido" Desarrollo de la...

Castillo d'Acher Características Menú de navegación

Puerta de Hutt Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación15°58′00″S 5°42′00″O /...