> The short variable names should be clear enough if you understand the purpose of the function.
I shouldn't have to read the function implementation to understand its purpose. Code is buggy! If the function has no name or comment explaining what it's supposed to do, I only have the (often buggy) implementation to go by.
There is no reason to use terse, non-descriptive names in 2021. It's an awful practice that guarantees easy-to-avoid bugs.
I am saying you indeed should have descriptive function names.
I also agree that if the function's name leaves something to be desired then it should be commented.
You are conflating function names--global and relatively non-contextual--with variable names--which have limited scope and rely on the function name for their meaning.
In the setColor example, I would use setColor for the function name and c for the parameter name (with the caveat that C language doesn't have method names, so my reasoning about context has limited applicability to non-C languages)
I shouldn't have to read the function implementation to understand its purpose. Code is buggy! If the function has no name or comment explaining what it's supposed to do, I only have the (often buggy) implementation to go by.
There is no reason to use terse, non-descriptive names in 2021. It's an awful practice that guarantees easy-to-avoid bugs.