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 02:57:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!do.de.uu.net!lnewspeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail From: Jon Skeet 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 ? Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:57:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fi87m$9du$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> <9fi9c5$9s0$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> Organization: Peramon Technology Ltd. X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30 NNTP-Posting-Host: fw.peramon.com X-Trace: 991735023 reading.news.pipex.net 15031 193.132.195.125 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8134 comp.lang.awk:2755 comp.lang.clarion:21084 comp.lang.java.programmer:73600 comp.lang.pl1:748 comp.lang.vrml:3478 Date: 2001-06-05T10:57:02+01:00 List-Id: Blaikie 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. -- Jon Skeet - skeet@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please don't mail me at the same time