Your fave variable

I'll start

var dickie

This seems familiar.

$_

I recall that guy who named variables after pokemon.
Hope he doesn't have emotional relationships with them.

>>4
He probably cries whenever he has to free a pikachu.


int i;
char c;
float f;
void *ptr;
//and so on

int i = 0, j = 0;
They're my favorite looping buddies.

Whenever I write object methods in Perl, I always name the object $o.
But when I fake object methods in C, it's always k. I don't remember why.

z and w, they don't get enough love.

long anus;

int dicks;
char *dicks;
etc...

Common variable names that I use are: x function string list, where x is usually the only argument of a lambda which is passed around (mapping/reducing/...), and function and string are arguments of the implied type.

Not unlike code like this:

(mapcar #'(lambda (x)
            (unless (predp x)
              (with-stuff
                  (do-something x))))
        list)
Maybe I should instead use a reader macro like [* _ 3] to represent (lambda (x) (* x 3), but I'm not sure it's worth it as I already have a handy keychord to make a new lambda for me.

I am a Haskellonian, so I only name my variables /[a-z]'*/. My favourite is x''.

>>12
Why use a reader macro and not just a normal macro like Scheme's cut^[1]?

<sub>--references--
1. http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/srfi-26.html</sub>

>>14
I don't usually use non-standard reader macros much, although I've written quite some fancy ones as exercises. The reason is because it usually makes one's code look unidiomatic and maybe even strange to someone not used to your reader macros and that macro characters themselves carry a large cost (like syntax in general does). Since it's usually possible to do almost everything(but not everything - for example fine-tweaking symbol interning behaviour without reader macros can be harder) using normal macros, I usually reach for a normal macro before I dare reach for a reader macro (and if I ever do write a reader macro, I usually have it expand into a macro or function call anyway).

The whole [_ ...] thing is actually a suggestion I saw on a certain someone's who still needs to gives us a certain CROMA Lisp's blog.

As for cut. I have to say it looks rather cool. I may use it instead of the usual rcurry/lcurry that I tend to use for such situations. Implementing it in CL also seems reasonably simple to me, altough some slight adjustments need to be made to account for Lisp-2'ness of CL (for example (cut <> a b) would need to be made into a (lambda (g) (funcall g a b)), but this special treatment shouldn't be terribly hard to implement).

The whole [_ ...] thing is actually a suggestion I saw on a certain someone's who still needs to gives us a certain CROMA Lisp's blog.
It also appears to be in arc
from http://ycombinator.com/arc/tut.txt

Since functions of one argument are so often used in Lisp programs,
Arc has a special notation for them.  [... _ ...]  is an abbreviation
for (fn (_) (... _ ...)).  So our first map example could have been
written

arc> (map [+ _ 10] '(1 2 3))
(11 12 13)

In C and C-like languages, I prefer to name iterator variables as int x, y, etc; as opposed to the PIG DISGUSTING int i, j, etc;

when I have to do php stuff

[code]
$thick = array();
//fill array

foreach($thick as $abrick) {
    //
}

>>4
I am now doing this for every program assignment

[bp-2]

>>16
Well then. If it's in Arc, we know it's a bad idea.

>>17
I think you need to stick to C_PLOX_PLOX

http://www.google.si/search?rls=en&q=IL_OP_U_MAD

static int once = 1;

used like this:
if (once) {
    doSomething();
    once = 0;
}
my real favorite is int i;

>>22
PLOX
www.usingenglish.com
www.englishuk.com/en

>>25
You misfired a little.

My favorite variables are those with names which are completely perpendicular to what they are actually doing.

>>26
MISFIRE MY ANUS

>>27
And orthogonal?

>>27
Like car and cdr!