From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 09:46:19 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml
Subject: Re: Long names are doom ?
Message-ID: <+FWVg+noA0yk@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz>
 <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net>
 <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <Xns90B35A5F54A70revbob@207.126.101.100>
 <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <ttofhtk7j7ufbtot7l2o0svn71qq0j7420@4ax.com>
 <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <aqvfhtk583och27tjjaagpt783kn21c6sp@4ax.com>
 <IsNS6.3800$v4.180713@www.newsranger.com> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <Bh0r7ajFbl7x@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <I4feerApIMVQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> <q81pht43ib89sjop0Organization: LJK
 Software
Date: 5 Jun 2001 10:58:23 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 991753105 216.44.122.34 (Tue,
 05 Jun 2001 14:58:25 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:58:25 GMT
Organization: Verio
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8174 comp.lang.awk:2777
 comp.lang.clarion:21125 comp.lang.java.programmer:73747 comp.lang.pl1:772
 comp.lang.vrml:3506
Date: 2001-06-05T10:58:23-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <MPG.1586bd4148c0f02198a6ca@mrmog.peramon.com>, Jon Skeet <skeet@pobox.com> writes:
> Blaikie <david_blaikie@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > > the sake of length seems a bit pointless (sometimes, other times if a
>> > > certain part of the code serves an independant function to the rest of
>> the
>> > > code, yet is still only used once, it may still be nice to seperate it)
>> > It doesn't always work like that, but it can. Code repetition isn't the
>> > only reason for refactoring.
>> 
>> i agree, thats why i put the exception in the brakets at the end, but there
>> are times when the code just simple isn't divisible, which is the point i
>> was making, yes if u have a routine that reads in and creates a simple
>> object., but one of its fields is an int, yes, have a seperate method that
>> reads and parses an int, but such a case is not always possible
> 
> Not *always* possible - but your inclusion of it just in brackets makes 
> it appear that you believe it's normally the case.
> 
> I'd suggest that *very* few methods which are ten pages of code which 
> *can't* be broken down further are well-designed.

How about a case statement for 137 possible cases ?

Even if it only calls a separate subprogram for each, that is longer
than most people's screenful.