Re: Corrected comments and a function check_meshing_chords divided in two. (issue 5975054)

[dak]

On 2012/04/14 19:12:01, Keith wrote:
> Splitting the function in two doesn't make it any easier for me to
understand,
> but I had figured it out before.

> On 2012/03/21 18:56:08, Milimetr88 wrote:
> > What I was taught at the university is to write short
> > and simple functions that do only one thing.

We don't have a short and simple task.  A function defines boundaries.
It has well-defined input, processes the input using local algorithms
and temporary data, and generates well-defined output.

Splitting the function into two parts does not make sense since the
first part has no well-defined output that can be considered reasonably
independent from the requirements and workings of the algorithms in the
second part.  When you are redesigning the second part, you'll need to
redefine the "interface" between the two parts and the first part as
well.  Whether or not you put an artificial function call boundary in
the middle of the function, it is not composed of modular parts that
could be reused in different contexts.

Modularity is not a self-serving goal.  In university, you will often
train using toy problems in order to get anything finished at all.  So
one tends to overmodularize, independent of any actual reuse of
functions (the toy problems usually are small enough that reuse is not
an actual issue even where a subtask _could_ be sensibly modularized).

http://codereview.appspot.com/5975054/