Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:37:21 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:37:18 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Holy boop: goto for Java
References: <jqh709$rgp$1@dont-email.me> <6AVyr.1859$8l2.827@newsfe14.iad> <jqha3s$95p$1@dont-email.me> <jqhcth$u5a$1@news.albasani.net> <hsZyr.46128$Gm4.1924@newsfe01.iad> <77a353f2-0933-413a-8e47-df577ba64976@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <77a353f2-0933-413a-8e47-df577ba64976@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <MKCdnZn3OM6Gn5HNnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 20
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.230.202.8
X-Trace: sv3-0eTrFK8cwq8g3n51y+BOrFTvDSGlcmOfU8fJHlh06AazmnM4F4ZrpRjB9D8rBI9HowHYriWv/upH6qQ!iS5uZzvLj1El4efthB0uZXnheA4NCRE7FvKWxxpBF5i3sQ/b4ikCqEZEzG03CYDJbVT/Y6Ko2/k7!LXJhHVdNjAJIV/Oj/jNFqgaBT60mLucFmtkmlZ7G5shH
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2340
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:16216

On 6/4/2012 12:37 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2012 9:28:13 AM UTC+2, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> What amazes me is that these individuals support this religious
>> stance by arguing that it improves readability, when producing
>> little auxiliary methods usually does anything but.
>
> I am not religious about break / continue (although I use it
> extremely seldom, I am more likely to use "return" inside a loop).
> But I disagree about your general statement about little auxiliary
> methods usually not improving readability.  It all depends on the
> specific case, of course, but giving a short part of an algorithm a
> name (with the option to have a place to put JavaDoc) often helps
> readability in my experience.


One test that I use in this sort of situation is to try to think of a
name for the potential extracted method. If there is a good, clear,
simple name, I make a method. If not, I'm more likely to leave it in place.

Patricia