“do” helper for emphasis in variable naming
On that note. The other day I surprised myself by forming an excited opinion during code review about what a variable should be called. I guess the time had done arrived; I had spent just enough time in Ember and client state management to become OCD about the signifiers being passed around. And so I found myself feeling incomplete when I read over a line of code announcing a state change event that facetChanged. I can’t totally explain it but this wording felt insufficient. I instinctively wanted more. Needed surge troops. Something like…facetDidChange.
The difference is slight. But not meaningless.
I researched the grammar to figure out why the variable was letting me down.
Turns out the “do” helping verb isn’t a special thing. But when added to another verb in the preterite, it increases emphatic assertion; heaping a deeper credibility on the thing that did happen. You can really feel it on your brain tongue. Right? The additional d letters in the phrase — more hardness equaling more certainty.
Or maybe the reassurance is there because of the influence of the black/southern dialect on modern American english; the Shakespearian-like emphasis where past finality is hammered home when something done [verbed], or 2x emphasized when someone done did.
The code doth protest too much??
Eh, I didn’t push for a rewrite in the code review. Naming is a bar brawl and sometimes you fight and sometimes you don’t. The author is balancing empathy for their colleagues with their own mental frame of the application at the moment they create the code; and then there are many an english word and conventional abbreviations, degrees of formality and tone. There’s a reason Steve McConnell dedicates 30 pages on The Power of Variable Names. And this section doesn’t even explicitly tackle naming receivers, subscribers, etc…
The receiving end of user clicks beeps and bops.
But ya know, the facet changed. So…