I guess the question is - why do the extracted functions look ugly or lack cohesion if they still accomplish part of the task previously done by `x`? If they are very general - you can consider moving them somewhere else and making them public, otherwise they should stay in the same namespace, just like private methods in OO design.
On Wednesday, 19 November 2014 20:00:49 UTC+1, henry w wrote: > > > imagine in a namespace you have functions x, y, and z which are public. > > function x grows a bit big, so is broken out so that it calls 2 other > functions, f and g. > > now, imagine with all the clean code and refactoring in the world, still f > and g have nothing to do with y and z - but are declared in the same > namespace and that looks untidy and lacks cohesion - even if f and g are > private. > > should x, f and g now move into their own namespace? > > in that case, x doesnt live with y and z, which it should do. > moving just f and g into their own ns 'guts-of-x' feels overblown. > or keep x just as a var that refers to var guts-of-x/x-impl, which is a > var that has the contents of the old x. > > or, should f and g not be top level? they could be let within x. x is then > still big, but at least f and g have names and x doesnt look like a big > inline jumble. > > please advise. thanks. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
