Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William Tanksley, Jr wrote: > > I understand this, but I think it's more complicated than just this. > > When the need is for a 'dup' I'd rather use 'dup' than 'a--aa'; but > > when the need is for a chain of stack shuffles, I'd far rather use > > 'abcd--dcdabacd' than spend the time thinking of the alternative.
> > (Yes, I concede that a horror like I just wrote is usually well > > handled by refactoring. But as we all know, sometimes it isn't.) > If I can't find a nice way to express something with the stack, I'd > rather just use locals. IMO, a shuffle like abcd-dcdabacd isn't easy > to follow, whichever way you dice it. You're probably right; the complexity of that shuffle is just too high (I was pretty much slapping the keyboard to generate that one). I suspect any shuffle with more than 3 or (max) 4 is too complex. I really hate using locals. But they would be better than that shuffle -- unless the shuffle were simply adapting to a foreign API (win32, for example). > Slava -Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
