On 14 April 2012 21:12, <[email protected]> wrote: > Splitting the function in two doesn't make it any easier for me to > understand, but I had figured it out before. > > On 2012/03/21 18:56:08, Milimetr88 wrote: > >> What I was taught at the university is to write short >> and simple functions that do only one thing. >> > > Maybe this was intended as advice for when you initially write code; it > would encourage the writer to find the smallest independent tasks and > cleanest interfaces between those tasks. Splitting up an existing > function, that has grown into its assigned task and assigned interface, > is different.
On 14 April 2012 22:37, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Splitting the function into two parts does not make sense since the > first part has no well-defined output that can be considered reasonably > independent from the requirements and workings of the algorithms in the > second part. When you are redesigning the second part, you'll need to > redefine the "interface" between the two parts and the first part as > well. Whether or not you put an artificial function call boundary in > the middle of the function, it is not composed of modular parts that > could be reused in different contexts. > > Modularity is not a self-serving goal. > http://codereview.appspot.com/**5975054/<http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/> > Ok, I'll merge it back. Łukasz
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
