However, if this was a functional programming language, there wouldn’t be any mutable global variables to be unaware were being examined, nor could Suck do any sucking unless it were passed the thing to suck and returned the sucked thing.
In this way the subtle class of bugs that you both are warning against would be impossible to introduce.
Depending on the kind of sucking that Suck does, however, you may perceive the global invisibility and availability of the sucking as an advantage in this case. But possibly not if the code is your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Your naming advice is universally good.
However, if this was a functional programming language, there wouldn’t be any mutable global variables to be unaware were being examined, nor could Suck do any sucking unless it were passed the thing to suck and returned the sucked thing.
In this way the subtle class of bugs that you both are warning against would be impossible to introduce.
Depending on the kind of sucking that Suck does, however, you may perceive the global invisibility and availability of the sucking as an advantage in this case. But possibly not if the code is your girlfriend/boyfriend.
I didn’t need to do this but I did and now I want it in my comment history:
class Suckable { bool unsucked; public: Suckable () { unsucked = true; } void Suck() { unsucked = false; } void CheckAndSuck() { if (unsucked) { Suck(); } } };Sorry for making you see c++, it’s the language I’m currently using. This program compiles on my machine and doesn’t use global variables.