Is this a "gotcha" in Python?

[DL Neil]

>> Isn't there an argument that in this context, using the single letter
>> "l" as a variable name is 'lazy'? That the "l" could be used in
>> different contexts (per OP). That it conveys no meaning as to the
>> variable's purpose?
> 
> In this specific case, I actually think that "l" is a bad choice, but
> not because it's a single letter - more because there is a very strong
> convention of using "i" for a loop iterator, and the lowercase "l" is
> confusingly similar.

"Convention" or "Tradition"?
(cue sound-track from "Fiddler on the Roof")

Back in the days of (my) learning FORTRAN (back then I suspect it did 
not even have a (version) number), the rule was that any variable name 
starting with a letter between I and N was an integer, and all else were 
reals/floating-point. Later, the REAL and INTEGER type declarations were 
introduced - but readability suffered when a dozen pages 'down' one read 
ABC = 10 (huh?), having read INTEGER ABC way-back!

(those particular letters chosen because of IN-teger, for those who 
didn't notice!)

IIRC it was COBOL Data Division entries and FORTRAN FORMAT statements 
which introduced the place-holder convention/tradition of A for alpha, 9 
for digit, and X for alphanum. Apparently less-widely observed these days.


>> Surely the variable actually has 'meaning'. Otherwise it wouldn't be
>> used in the print statement/function! (appreciating this is a simple
>> situation/'toy example')
>>
>> That being the case, "l" should be something like "list_of_choices"?
> 
> No; a name like that would imply that it is a *collection*. You could
> iterate over such a thing, but the loop iterator gets just one of
> them. (Unless you're iterating over a list of lists of choices, or
> something unusual like that.)

Agreed - no idea what the OP's real-use might be.


>> There is an opposite case (and I'm somewhat diffident about it). Namely,
>> using the underscore as a temporary variable. I have not seen it very
>> often (YMMV). However, it seems to fit under the heading of 'a Pythonic
>> convention'.
> for i in range(5):
>      do_something(i)
>> PEP-8 [pep8] talks of <<<_single_leading_underscore: weak "internal use"
>> indicator>>> because whilst there is a convention of 'private use' it is
>> not enforced as a 'rule' - ie the "consenting adults" clause applies!

> More or less. I would distinguish the lone underscore from the leading
> underscore, but there is a broad parallel.
> Generally, the lone underscore means "this doesn't matter". A Python
> program might do something five times thus (as per your example...
> But if you want to take notice of WHICH something you're doing, it's
> much better to use a different name:

+1
Farm kids are often taught: don't name something if you're going to 
end-up eating it later.
Recommend that Python trainees be taught: name everything that has a use 
later...


>> Arguing that the "l" variable name conveys no meaning, or is 'just a
>> counter', could one then modify the previous example:
>>   > for _ in range( 50 ):
>>   >      print( _, end=" " )
>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
>> 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 >>>
> IMO this is a dangerous use of the underscore. If you DO care about
> the value, it should get another name.

+1


> That said, though: the name does NOT need to be long. Single-letter
> variable names are entirely valuable. Short names for short-lived
> variables with small scope are absolutely fine.

Upon first coming across the "_" place-holder idea, I started to use it 
(perhaps over-use it?). However, rapidly learned/noticed the virtue of 
"use => name".

Unfortunately, sometimes dreaming-up a name seems like a lot of effort. 
So, I found myself wanting to say "counter", "pointer", "index"... 
(whilst at the same time being most thankful of Python's for-each 
construct removing the many use-cases for the for/do-loop by-index 
prevalent in other coding-languages, and the source of so many errors!).

Despite the fact that most text-editors will now 'guess' varNMs for us, 
'laziness' ensues, just as it does in email/SMS/etc. Thus "ctr", "ptr", 
"ndx"... and pretty soon, we are back to "i". Cry it from the roof-tops: 
TRADITION!

Yet, because "i" (or "n", "a", or "x"...) does not convey usage-meaning 
- other than, "I am a place-holder"! So, aren't we back to "_"?


-- 
Regards =dn