http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=108783


in reply to Style & subroutine organization

Camelman,

Good job on Code Complete. The following is somewhat extracted from there and other sources.

The two criteria for function "goodness" are coupling and cohesion. Cohesion can be thought of as the "internal" make-up of the function - does it do one (or a few small things) well. Coupling is how related one function is to another. The goal is to design/implement functions (or procedures, or methods, or whatever) that have high cohesion and low coupling.

With your second example

func1(); sub func1{ func2(); }
We have mediocre cohesion and high coupling. Mediocre cohesion because not only does func1 do "its thing" but also because it has a secondary function of controlling flow. There is a high coupling between func1 and func2 because you need to go through func1 to get to func2. This is not always a bad thing but I think we can avoid it here.

That all being said, there are some functions whose sole purpose is to control the flow. Sometimes they're called dispatch functions and other times traffic controllers. (Which is what suaveant explained)

-derby

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Style & subroutine organization
by pmas (Hermit) on Aug 29, 2001 at 20:10 UTC
    Something like this was discussed here already...
    Everything was discussed here, at least once, right...;-)

    Check i.e.: (Software Engr) Encapsulate! No,no,no! Decouple!.

    pmas
    To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.

Re: Re: Style & subroutine organization
by camelman (Sexton) on Aug 29, 2001 at 19:42 UTC
    I appreciate everyone's help here. Next time I'll write an example that is more concrete. My attempt at brevity backfired. ;-) Probably what I'm getting at is the use of "dispatch functions." I'm really tring to incorporate local variables, use strict, and passing references between arrays so I'm coming up with some odd questions. I'm a UNIX admin with no formal Computer Science training so I rely on O'Reilly and perlmonks for my information. Thanks again . . . Kevin