I wrote:I would imagine ids could be a suitably expressive name if surrounding code were written like this:
Tim Holloway wrote:I'd simply type in a quick-and-dirty name like "qix" when coding and then do a refactor-rename or global text edit to make them meaningful.
Monica Shiralkar wrote:This name queuedRequestIDsCount would be fine only if I have only 1 queue . I am taking about the case if you have multiple queues and you only want the count of requestIds that have been inserted into ProcessingQueue.
Nor does critical thinking, as Junilu mentioned earlier. If you do some critical thinking, what would the presence of such a List/Queue/OtherCollection tell you? What would happen if it is accompanied by a count variable as you had earlier? Note Tim H's comments.
Junilu Lacar wrote:Variables do not exist in a vacuum. . . .
Tim Holloway wrote:In fact, countOfRequestIdsWithComputationComplete sounds like the name you would give a (shudder!) global variable.
fred rosenberger wrote:Hopefully, wherever you work has some kind of coding standard. Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it is critical you FOLLOW it. If there is a standard for how variables are to be named, then use it.