Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Broken down internals (modules per "feature") #38

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 17, 2022

Conversation

paulo-ferraz-oliveira
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #33.

If you feel we should also sort the function definitions, I'm up for it.
I usually keep the "internal" functions next to whatever calls them (it seems you do the same), so I would be careful to take those along with the "moved" functions.

Let me know.

Copy link
Contributor

@elbrujohalcon elbrujohalcon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Personally, I would've kept a single module. I think that was easier to explain on the training, since it will involve less indirection.
But I don't strongly dislike this change. I'll approve.

@paulo-ferraz-oliveira paulo-ferraz-oliveira changed the title Feature/broken down internals Broken down internals (modules per "feature") Apr 23, 2022
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira paulo-ferraz-oliveira modified the milestones: 0.1.0, 0.2.0 Apr 23, 2022
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira
Copy link
Contributor Author

We can wait until after the training 😄 (or not merge, if you prefer, even; I don't mind seeing pull requests rejected - they start out by being possibilities, to me). I'll keep this here (unmerged), for the time being... For 0.1.0 (the training version, I just wanna have some examples ready, as well as the documentation as a .md). I'll also update this PR's milestone to 0.2.0 to make that choice visible.

@paulo-ferraz-oliveira
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated as per most recent changes (lest it becomes too outdated).

@@ -148,52 +102,49 @@ run_expects(Message, Expects) ->
maps:fold(fun (_Id, _Expect, {{'$nuntius', match}, _} = Result) ->
Result;
(_Id, Expect, {'$nuntius', nomatch}) ->
try
{{'$nuntius', match}, Expect(Message)}
try Expect(Message) of
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe this approach is also valid in bringing more clarity to the function_clause caveat.

@paulo-ferraz-oliveira paulo-ferraz-oliveira merged commit 4e470ae into main May 17, 2022
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira paulo-ferraz-oliveira deleted the feature/broken-down-internals branch May 17, 2022 20:08
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira paulo-ferraz-oliveira modified the milestones: 0.1.0, 1.0.0 Nov 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Code refactor (more modules?, sorted functions?, improved function grouping?)
2 participants