Hi Rob, surely the software should have programmer-documentation, thus removing the need to remember return-values :)
But as a general rule of thumb, yes keeping modules small, helps to reduce complexity and makes it more maintainable. Presuming that there already is, low coupling and high cohesion, etc etc Have a happy new Year folks! kind regards, Norman On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Robert Collins wrote: > their interfaces identical (and thus having less to remember ;)). > > I think he's right though, that if you can't remember (say) whether a > Range.size() method for a range created [0,1) returns 1 or 0, you'll be > in trouble. > > Where I think it's too simplified is that using facades or identical > interfaces, you can dramatically reduce the number of API's one is > actually exposed too, whilst still decomposing the code to it's maximal > appropriate point of reuse. (I have a rule of thumb - I don't code a > module as such until I know it needs to be a module - the second time a > set of code is used. I'll make the code easy to extract when I first > write it though (cause I'm lazy ;)). > > Rob -- E-Solutions for BSD and Linux http://www.paladincorp.com.au/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
