I often employ this pattern in Ruby using `.tap` or a `begin` block.
It barely adds any functionality but it's useful for readability because of the same reasons in the OP.
It helps because I've been bitten by code that did this:
setup_a = some_stuff
setup_b = some_more_stuff
i_think_this_is_setup = even_more_stuff
the_thing = run_setup(setup_a, setup_b, i_think_this_is_setup)
That's all fine until later on, probably in some obscure loop, `i_think_this_is_setup` is used without you noticing.Instead doing something like this tells the reader that it will be used again:
i_think_this_is_setup = even_more_stuff
the_thing = begin
setup_a = some_stuff
setup_b = some_more_stuff
run_setup(setup_a, setup_b, i_think_this_is_setup)
end
I now don't mentally have to keep track of what `setup_a` or `setup_b` are anymore and, since the writer made a conscious effort not to put it in the block, you will take an extra look for it in the outer scope.
JavaScript chiming in...
Used to do this occasionally for exactly the same reasons- don't leave dangling variables junking up your scope, and don't make weirdo functions with parameter passing that you'll only ever call once!Clojure also has the threading macro -> and ->> which are great at converting exactly the same type of code into a stream of modifications instead of breaking out everything into variables. Naming things can be very useful sometimes but sometimes it is entirely gratuitous and distracting to have
let input = read_input(); let trimmed_input = input.trim(); let trimmed_uppercase_input = trimmed_input.uppercase();
...
The extra variable names are almost completely boilerplate and make it also annoying to reorder things.
In Clojure you can do
(-> (read-input) string/trim string/upcase)
And I find that so much more readable and refactorable.