On 4/30/14, 4:20 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 11:13:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
walkLength is a really good name. Clear, concise, to the point. It's
not often that you can make such a short name that explains the
behaviour so well.
Actually it isn't a good abstraction as it exposes implementation
internals.
The name should indicate what you get (the calculating of a result), not
how the framework obtains it (sequential scan).
Making complexity an implementation detail is an antipattern. -- Andrei
