Re^2: Refactoring: Better Variable Names For Better Understanding?

With some delay...some more thoughts:

"$div is a boolean which defines whether or not you're in the (Mandelbrot) set. If TRUE, the pixel gets a colour from the palette; if FALSE, the pixel gets black. How about renaming $div to $in_set"

According to this If TRUE would mean that the pixel is in the set (colored) and If FALSE would mean that the pixel is not in the set (black), right?

But i think it should be the other way round because the set is traditionally painted in black:

"A point c is colored black if it belongs to the set, and white if not."

N.B.: Threads like this are also a challenge to my skills in English.

My best regards, Karl

ŤThe Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostropheť

Comment on Re^2: Refactoring: Better Variable Names For Better Understanding?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Refactoring: Better Variable Names For Better Understanding? by kcott (Archbishop) on Jun 10, 2015 at 09:18 UTC
"... whether or not ..." In this context, it refers to the two states of the boolean variable: whether (ON) or not (OFF). Perhaps "egal, ob ..."? "But i think it should be the other way round ..." See update to my original response. -- Ken	[reply]
Re^4: Refactoring: Better Variable Names For Better Understanding? by karlgoethebier (Abbot) on Jun 14, 2015 at 18:47 UTC
What i wanted to say: Points in black are the Mandelbrot set But please see Divergence from the Mandelbrot Set: "...In the right-hand image, white points* have iterates with norms less than 2. These are the remaining candidates for membership in the Mandelbrot set"* Holy moly! It seems like it's the other way around again. Thank you very much for your kind replies and for donating so much time for this issue. My best regards, Karl ŤThe Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostropheť	[reply]