←back to thread

361 points mmphosis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
leetrout ◴[] No.42165704[source]
> It's better to have some wonky parameterization than it is to have multiple implementations of nearly the same thing. Improving the parameters will be easier than to consolidate four different implementations if this situation comes up again.

Hard disagree. If you cant decompose to avoid "wonky parameters" then keep them separate. Big smell is boolean flags (avoid altogether when you can) and more than one enum parameter.

IME "heavy" function signatures are always making things harder to maintain.

replies(17): >>42165868 #>>42165902 #>>42166004 #>>42166217 #>>42166363 #>>42166370 #>>42166579 #>>42166774 #>>42167282 #>>42167534 #>>42167823 #>>42168263 #>>42168489 #>>42168888 #>>42169453 #>>42169755 #>>42171152 #
arccy ◴[] No.42166363[source]
+1, have 2 implementations that each have an independent branch point? if you combine them you have a function with 2 bool parameters, and 4 possible states to test, 2 of which you might never need
replies(4): >>42167501 #>>42168511 #>>42170578 #>>42187714 #
1. cma ◴[] No.42170578[source]
A very common one is two booleans with one combination of them being an invalid state (e.g. never are both bools true in a valid state but all can be false or a mixture). Use an enum instead that represents only the three valid cases.