This would require coming up with an order of magnitude more variable names which is just unnecessary cognitive load.
replies(3):
Usually there are good, obvious names for intermediate calculations in my experience.
I'm open though - what kinds of things are you doing that require reassigning variables so much?
But any variable which I’ve not already marked as const is pretty much by definition going to be modified at least once. So now instead of 1 variable name you need at least two.
So now the average number of variables per non-const variable is >= 2 and will be much more if you’re doing for example DSP related code or other math heavy code.
You can avoid it with long expressions but that in principle is going against the “name every permutation” intention anyway.
It's actually math heavy code (or maybe medium heavy?) where I really like naming every intermediate. fov, tan_fov, half_tan_fov, center_x, norm_x
Which sounds really awful, but after a while it forces you to parse the logic itself instead of being guided by possibly-out-of-date comments and variable names.
I now prefer less verbosity so that probably explains why I’m a little out of distribution on this topic.
If you looked at any of my code prior to that job, it was the polar opposite with very “pretty” code and lengthy comments everywhere.