Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #7729

Re: Function naming scheme

Show all headers | View raw

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> On 2017-04-19, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-04-19, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>>>> I have two sets of similar (for pairings of functions from the
>>>> different sets) functions: one for single orders and one for basket
>>>> orders.
>>> 
>>> How about: an order contains a list of items. When that list is
>>> length 1, we call it a single order; when it's two or more, we call it a
>>> basket order. Then we don't need a separate type, with repeated
>>> boiler-plate code that is almost the same except for handling a list
>>> versus one item.
>>
>> Sorry, we have a set relational DB structure where single orders and
>> basket orders are represented differently. I don't have the power to
>> change the DB scheme.
> 
> Not buying it. Your abstraction in the code is independent of the DB
> scheme.
> 
> If orders arrived over SMTP, would you require them to have a To, From,
> Subject and MessageID?
> 
>> So them are two different cases and need to be processed somehow
>> differently (despite having much in common).
> 
> Like we can have length(list) and length(vector): processed differently,
> same name.
> 
> Even if it turns out that you actually need a different data type for
> single orders versus basket orders, they could have the same named
> methods for the common thing.
> 
> Moreover, if the single order type actually uses the same data structure
> to represent the list of orders as a basket order (e.g. a list of one
> item), then they can probably share a lot of code in the base class.
> 
> Just dealing with the DB schema and whatnot can be specialized
> to the specific type.
> 
>> We use Perl, we consider to rewrite all our software in PHP.
> 
> If the relevance of this remark is to confirm that your development
> shop is daft, I assure you that it is redundant.

See my another message in this thread.

I have finally realized that I can process both cases in one control flow 
(not two "parallel" sets of functions).

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Function naming scheme Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-04-19 21:46 +0300
  Re: Function naming scheme Kaz Kylheku <686-678-9105@kylheku.com> - 2017-04-19 19:25 +0000
    Re: Function naming scheme Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-04-19 22:37 +0300
      Re: Function naming scheme Kaz Kylheku <686-678-9105@kylheku.com> - 2017-04-19 20:18 +0000
        Re: Function naming scheme Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-04-19 23:43 +0300
  Re: Function naming scheme Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2017-04-19 22:54 +0300

csiph-web