Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38828

Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()

From	Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()
Date	2019-03-29 16:53 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<q7lihk$3ut$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<q7lbvc$152e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <And-20190329162634@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 29/03/2019 15:30, Stefan Ram wrote:
>   First observation: "And" in a method name is a indication that
>   the method does too many things or has no clear responsibility.
> 
>   So one should check whether it is possible to refactor, i.e.,
>   to split the method or improve the name.

I fully agree, and that is how I would implement code "in the real
world". But as this was an interview technical test, I was given two
classes and the second one had an empty implementation for
MergePurgeAndReverseSort().

I was not allowed to change anything, other than implement the method.

>   Next observation: "implement it". Implement what?
>   Where's the specification? They should have given
>   you a specification of what the method is supposed
>   to do. May be this is what follows in the comment?
> 
>>	/*
>>	 * [x] Merge the two arrays
>>	 * [x] remove duplicates
>>	 * [x] remove NULL's
>>	 * [x] sort in reverse order
>>	 * [x] return as an int[] array
>>	 */

It was a while back. I can't remember if they supplied that comment, or
if I did it to make sure I implemented everything that was asked. Either
way, that checklist is what the method had to do in the end.

Regards,
  Graeme

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 15:01 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 11:19 -0400
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:42 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:47 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:53 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 19:42 +0100
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:53 +0000
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:19 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2019-03-30 11:23 +0200
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:16 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 13:20 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:21 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 04:56 -0700
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() bursejan@gmail.com - 2019-03-29 15:40 -0700

csiph-web