Re: Bad coding standards - aesthetics are irrelevant

[mark_lundquist@my-deja.com]

In article <x7vr92zwokn.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>,
  Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
> Bruce or Tracy <bljacobs@hiwaay.net> writes:
> >
> >   My_Package_Name.My_Procedure_Name
> >     (The_Track_Number        => Track_Number,
> >      The_Meters_From_Target  => Meters_From_Targer,
> >      The_Seconds_Till_Impact => Seconds_Till_Impact,
> >      The_Weapon_Azimuth      => Azimuth,
> >      The_Weapon_Elevation    => Elevation,
> [etc...]
>
> I noticed the 'The_Whatever' style -- this was the old Booch
> recommendation, I think. But even then it struck me as a desperate
> measure -- really you need to think about the names in the context
> that the subprogram must be called. Not always possible, of course!
>

Yeah!  I can't stand the "The_Whatever" style, either.  I never, ever
use it.  "Desperate" is just the right for how it reads.  Did that
really come from His Boochness? :-)

The funny thing about the example is that is the named associations,
which are (rightly) being displayed as an example of improved
readability, that make the weakness of the "The_Whatever" convention
most apparent.  This habit is an easy way out for the writer of the
parameterized construct at the expense of the writer who will use it.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/