On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

> I had to have some extra excuse for departing from the 1 month=30 day 
> formula in order to use the handy Time class ;-)

Help yourself! The original code suuuucked! :)

> And I personally think that the arrangement I discovered stands out,
> which is why I bothered to post it.  I also think that the other
> approaches people have posted represent some nice inventions,
> especially your assortment :-)

Yes, I have no idea how some of the presented code works at all, but
it's great to know exactly what the code is doing. It's given me a
whole new range of things to look at so it's been good. :)

> In doing that I did look for a way to avoid using divmod or the table
> or scattered logic. And I found a way. Also, no one else put their code
> into a class.

Yes, that was good! I'm not an OO programmer, so I wanted to see what
the code would look like in OO shape, and any advantages/benefits of
doing things that way.

> Wouldn't you agree that, since functions are not first class objects in
> Ruby, that it makes more sense to focus on the objects?  I think this
> is what Steve was getting at (Steve?).  To do this it seems that I
> should minimize parameters and put the methods inside appropriate
> classes with a carefully selected name.

Yep!

> So, perhaps this is a conversation *starter* ?  :-)

Hopefully this code dissection, rewriting and optimisation becomes a
regular feature. Anyone else want to post the next amusing problem
for us to work on? :)

-- 
  steve / deaf.org