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: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-04 21:52:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pogner.demon.co.uk!zap!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada Date: 03 Feb 2002 18:50:43 +0000 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012888286 nnrp-07:17848 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Feb 2002 18:50:43 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19622 Date: 2002-02-03T18:50:43+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" writes: > I think it's arguable whether that actually counts as > refactoring. Do the semantics really remain the same (as opposed to > 'effectively the same')? I would be surprised if the refactoring process described in Fowler's book ended up with code that had precisely the same semantics as the original. Passes the same test suite, yes, but that's not the same. > To clarify, could the change have been > made, safely, by a purely mechanised algorithm? (I don't think > so. And if it could, the algorithm would have to be fiendishly > complex, no?) Ditto any reasonable refactoring process?