I agree this increases readability and is nice.+1
The only thing that gives me the creeps is the force push in the PR. But
that is off topic, so another email for that.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:42 AM Gilles Sadowski
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 01:34, Heinrich Bohne a
> écrit :
> >
Hi.
Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 01:34, Heinrich Bohne a écrit :
>
> > (2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_
> > the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented
> blocks.)
>
> I did not pull out the code sections into separate methods because I ha
> (2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_
> the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented
blocks.)
I did not pull out the code sections into separate methods because I had no
intention of re-structuring the whole class. I only wanted to fix a
I've used code blocks in this style in the past but...
(1) It is helpful to add a // comment for each block, otherwise, it feels
anonymous and weird to me.
(2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_
the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented bl
Sorry, I messed up the link to the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36
On 6/12/19 3:00 PM, Heinrich Bohne wrote:
I have been asked to request some feedback on this pull request:
https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36– specifically, about
the introduction of
I have been asked to request some feedback on this pull request:
https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36– specifically, about
the introduction of code blocks in the commit "NUMBERS-100: Reduce scope
of local variables".
I had the idea with the code blocks when I wanted to add a test to
