But I am still impelled to offer a contrarian view.
Look to the long view.
If the script is more than a one_off, one_use package, think of your successor, as you may wish a predecessor had thought of you.
Surely, that hypothetical maintainer, perhaps generations from now, will find it easier to distinguish one $var from another, if you take the minimally non-lazy way of naming the $vars in the sub something like $sub_length, $sub_breadth and $sub_height.
Imagine all that and add a few (not unreasonable, IMO) additional complications; namely, that your script has become a part of your organization's backbone... AND has been "enhanced" by some intermediate generations; that the "bells & whistles" they've added have muddied the waters; and that your sub now resides some hundreds or thousands of lines from its original position of prominence and its original clear relationship to the caller.
In reply to Re: Confusion in naming variables in subroutines
by ww
in thread Confusion in naming variables in subroutines
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |