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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #25538

Re: Request for source code review

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
| It's a lot better than most newbie code. But you need to think a bit
| more about what makes a good function.
|
| d() is a good function, but a bad nmae. It rolls a ide and returns the
| result. It's intuitive, it's resuable, it represents a natural module.
 I can think of:
 * die
 * roll_die
 * n_sided_die
 
| However some of the printing functions seem to exist purely to get code out
| of main(). When main() becomes so long that it's unreadable then it's 
| necessary to break it down. But when the program is quite simple, it's better
| not to hide things in functions.
|
| This function for example is really just a wrapper for a printing loop
|
|
| /* Print the number of occurrences of the various sums. */
|  
| void printsums (int sums [], int limit) {
|
|     int i;
|
|     for (i = NDICE; i < limit; i++)
|         printf ("%2d: %d\n", i, sums [i]);
| }
|
|
|  then it's got another problem with it, which is that it's taking one 
| limit as an argument and the other as a compile time constant. So you're
| creating confusion. Don't be afraid to pass a compile time constant as 
| a parameter. Often that makes functions more understandable and more 
| general.
 I have used this convention in two other functions (histogram &
 histsums).  I should redesign them too.
 
| histsums() however is more substantial, and drawing a histogram is a natural
| unit of work. So the case for this being in a function is a lot stronger.
| You could also write a top-level fucntion printoutput(), if you want a tidy
| main().
 My aim was to make clear the flow of the program in  main.  Anything
 that did some specific work, I moved to its own function.

 But, I get your point.

 Incidentally, when faced with an unfamiliar codebase, where do you
 begin reading?

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

Thread

Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 00:49 +0530
  Re: Request for source code review Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-29 19:43 +0000
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 18:46 +0530
  Re: Request for source code review Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 22:27 +0100
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 09:44 +0530
    Re: Request for source code review Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2012-09-07 17:31 -0700
      Re: Request for source code review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-08 12:41 +1200
      Re: Request for source code review Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 04:06 +0100
        Re: Request for source code review 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-07 23:50 -0700
          Re: Request for source code review Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 12:28 +0100
  Re: Request for source code review "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-29 22:58 +0100
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 09:48 +0530
  Re: Request for source code review Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 18:55 -0700
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 10:06 +0530
      Re: Request for source code review lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:59 -0700
        Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 18:51 +0530
      Re: Request for source code review Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 13:44 +0100
        Re: Request for source code review lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-09-12 03:24 -0700
    Re: Request for source code review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 17:04 +1200
      Re: Request for source code review James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 07:43 -0400
        Re: Request for source code review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 20:43 +1200
          Re: Request for source code review Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:18 -0500
            Re: Request for source code review James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-01 20:34 -0400
              Re: Request for source code review Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-01 20:45 -0500
                Re: Request for source code review Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 15:11 +1200
                Re: Request for source code review Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-01 23:43 -0500
      Re: Request for source code review Adrian Ratnapala <raka@scooter.fritz.box> - 2012-09-01 07:40 +0000
  Re: Request for source code review Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-30 05:10 -0700
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 19:14 +0530
      Re: Request for source code review Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 16:42 +0100
  Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 19:44 +0530
  Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 20:03 +0530
    Re: Request for source code review Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 13:34 -0700
      Re: Request for source code review Adrian Ratnapala <raka@scooter.fritz.box> - 2012-09-01 07:49 +0000
        Re: Request for source code review Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 02:53 -0700
    Re: Request for source code review pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-08-31 21:15 -0400
  Re: Request for source code review Jan Kuiken <jan.kuiken@quicknet.nl> - 2012-08-31 19:55 +0200
    Re: Request for source code review Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 15:39 +0530
      Re: Request for source code review Jan Kuiken <jan.kuiken@quicknet.nl> - 2012-09-02 19:57 +0200

csiph-web