From: Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@...>
Date: 2010-05-27T21:47:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Badly organized code?

--0016e6db2b15bc671e048792cca3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Martin Hansen <mail@maasha.dk> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
> It is quite important to me that other people can put together a
> "Biopiece" as easily as possible i.e. expand the minimal example.
> Therefore I have moved code which under normal circumstances would be
> placed in the 'Biopieces' script to the Biopieces class - and I quite
> possibly violate a number of conventions that way.
>
> > I would extract the opion parsing from that class and either use a
> > Hash, OpenStruct or custom class for transportation of your options.
> > That way you make your bio pieces processing independent from the
> > interface (command line, graphical application etc.).
>
> I really don't want upcoming 'Biopiece writers' to fiddle around with
> other classes than the Biopieces class for the sake of simplicity - and
> I am willing to have option parsing and record parsing mixed even though
> it is ugly.
>
> > Btw, your code looks pretty clean and well documented.  That's good!
>
> Thanks, I am working hard on it!
>
>
> I was wondering if nested classes might bring some order to this?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Martin
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>
If you have a comprehensive set of tests, then people can refactor without
fear of breaking.

--0016e6db2b15bc671e048792cca3--