[PYTHON] Try refactoring step by step

I wanted to try something like this once

Premise

• From the point that I made a module called csv.py that makes csv-like list good
• This module is new and still has time and resources to redesign
• File input / output is troublesome, so a module called f.py will do the trick.
• Actually, you need path, but that is also appropriate
• Any language was fine, but I thought I hadn't written it recently, so I chose python.
• The subject and language are just images, and I'm not interested in the subject itself or whether it's cool python.

First edition

code

f.py

def write(lines):
    print 'write:', lines

csv.py

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import f


def as_kvs(rows):
    keys = rows[0]
    value_rows = rows[1:]

    return [dict(zip(keys, value_row)) for value_row in value_rows]


def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
    #Make multiple kv
    kvs = as_kvs(rows)

    #Sort by specified key
    _sorted = sorted(kvs, key=lambda row: row[sort_key])

    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, _sorted)

    if 0 < len(_filtered):
        #Extract the first line with the specified key
        _mapped_one = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)[0]
        #Write
        f.write([_mapped_one])
    else:
        #Create empty file
        f.write([])


def write_all_or_empty(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
    #Make multiple kv
    kvs = as_kvs(rows)

    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)

    if _filtered:
        #Extract all lines with the specified key
        _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
        #Write
        f.write(_mapped)
    else:
        #Create empty file
        f.write([])


def write_all_or_error(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
    #Make multiple kv
    kvs = as_kvs(rows)

    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)

    if _filtered:
        #Extract all lines with the specified key
        _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
        #Write
        f.write(_mapped)
    else:
        #error
        raise Exception("no result")

Caller

main.py

# status,Give csv consisting of code
#Sort by code
#The first case where status is active
#Write out code
#If not, just create a file

csv.write_first_one_or_empty(
    [['status', 'code'], ['dead', '001'], ['active', '003'], ['active', '002']],
    'code', 'status', 'active', 'code'
)

#result
# write: ['002']

main.py

# name,Give a csv consisting of gender
#All cases where gender is male
#Write out name
#If not, just create a file

csv.write_all_or_empty(
    [['name', 'gender'], ['Eva', 'female'], ['Sunny', 'female']],
    'gender', 'male', 'name'
)

#result
# write: []

main.py

# status,Give csv consisting of tel
#All cases with dead status
#Export tel
#Otherwise an error

csv.write_all_or_error(
    [['status', 'tel'], ['dead', '090-1111-1111'], ['active', '090-9999-9999']],
    'status', 'dead', 'tel'
)

#result
# write: ['090-1111-1111']

problem

• Difficult to read
• Not standardized
• When adding other methods in the future, it will be all copies
• I don't know how many places I have to fix if the same code is modified
• No information available from comments
• Only what you can understand by reading the code

step-1 I will write a comment in English for the time being

Difference

 def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
-    #Make multiple kv
+    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    #Sort by specified key
+    # sort by specified key
     _sorted = sorted(kvs, key=lambda row: row[sort_key])

-    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
+    # filter by specified key and value
     _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, _sorted)

     if 0 < len(_filtered):
-        #Extract the first line with the specified key
+        # extract by specified key and first one
         _mapped_one = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)[0]
-        #Write
+        # write
         f.write([_mapped_one])
     else:
-        #Create empty file
+        # write empty
         f.write([])

 def write_all_or_empty(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
-    #Make multiple kv
+    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
+    # filter by specified key and value
     _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)

     if _filtered:
-        #Extract all lines with the specified key
+        # extract by specified key
         _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
-        #Write
+        # write
         f.write(_mapped)
     else:
-        #Create empty file
+        # write empty
         f.write([])

 def write_all_or_error(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
-    #Make multiple kv
+    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    #Filters only where the specified key has the specified value
+    # filter by specified key and value
     _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)

     if _filtered:
-        #Extract all lines with the specified key
+        # extract by specified key
         _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
-        #Write
+        # write
         f.write(_mapped)
     else:
-        #error
+        # error
         raise Exception("no result")

Next problem

• There are comments such as # as kvs and # write.
• Even though the amount of information has not changed, there are many descriptions because it is double management and it is not cool

step-2 Organize comments and cut out methods based on English comments

policy

• Delete the part that almost matches the code by making it an English comment because it is a worthless comment
• For comments that are not, cut out the method and use it as the method name to delete it.

Difference

The method that was cut out is like this

+def sort_by_specified_key(kvs, key):
+    return sorted(kvs, key=lambda row: row[key])

+def filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, key, value):
+    return filter(lambda row: row[key] == value, kvs)

+def extract_by_specified_key_and_first_one(kvs, key):
+    return kvs[0][key]

+def extract_by_specified_key(kvs, key):
+    return map(lambda row: row[key], kvs)

+def error():
+    raise Exception("no result")

The main body is like this

-def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
+def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
-    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    # sort by specified key
-    _sorted = sorted(kvs, key=lambda row: row[sort_key])
+    _sorted = sort_by_specified_key(kvs, sort_key)

-    # filter by specified key and value
-    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, _sorted)
+    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(_sorted, filter_key, filter_value)

     if 0 < len(_filtered):
-        # extract by specified key and first one
-        _mapped_one = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)[0]
-        # write
-        f.write([_mapped_one])
+        extracted_one = extract_by_specified_key_and_first_one(_filtered, extraction_key)
+        f.write([extracted_one])
     else:
-        # write empty
         f.write([])

-def write_all_or_empty(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
+def write_all_or_empty(rows, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
-    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    # filter by specified key and value
-    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)
+    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, filter_key, filter_value)

     if _filtered:
-        # extract by specified key
-        _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
-        # write
-        f.write(_mapped)
+        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
+        f.write(extracted)
     else:
-        # write empty
         f.write([])

-def write_all_or_error(rows, filter_key, filter_value, write_key):
+def write_all_or_error(rows, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
-    # as kvs
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    # filter by specified key and value
-    _filtered = filter(lambda row: row[filter_key] == filter_value, kvs)
+    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, filter_key, filter_value)

     if _filtered:
-        # extract by specified key
-        _mapped = map(lambda row: row[write_key], _filtered)
-        # write
-        f.write(_mapped)
+        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
+        f.write(extracted)
     else:
-        # error
-        raise Exception("no result")
+        error()

Next problem

• You can only == filter_key and filter_value, so you can't filter like ʻage <20`
• Frequent index access to lists

step-3 Do a little local refactoring

Difference

I prepared head and tail because index access is a little unfriendly.

+def head(xs):
+    return xs[0]

+def tail(xs):
+    return xs[1:]

Where to use

 def as_kvs(rows):
-    keys = rows[0]
-    value_rows = rows[1:]
+    keys = head(rows)
+    value_rows = tail(rows)

 def extract_by_specified_key_and_first_one(kvs, key):
-    return kvs[0][key]
+    return head(kvs)[key]

Changed filter_by_specified_key_and_value to receive predicate instead of key, value to be a little more flexible

-def filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, key, value):
-    return filter(lambda row: row[key] == value, kvs)
+def filter_by_predicate(kvs, predicate):
+    return filter(predicate, kvs)

Then filter_by_predicate does nothing more than filter and discards it.

-def filter_by_predicate(kvs, predicate):
-    return filter(predicate, kvs)

Then I made head, so I may not have to prepare ʻextract_by_specified_key_and_first_one`. If the names of the methods divided into small pieces are correct, it is difficult for the process to become unclear even if they are used in combination.

-def extract_by_specified_key_and_first_one(kvs, key):
-    return head(kvs)[key]

Here is the main body that reflects the above

-def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
+def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

     _sorted = sort_by_specified_key(kvs, sort_key)

-    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(_sorted, filter_key, filter_value)
+    _filtered = filter(predicate, _sorted)

     if 0 < len(_filtered):
-        extracted_one = extract_by_specified_key_and_first_one(_filtered, extraction_key)
+        extracted_one = head(_filtered)[extraction_key]
         f.write([extracted_one])
     else:
         f.write([])

-def write_all_or_empty(rows, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
+def write_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, filter_key, filter_value)
+    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

     if _filtered:
         extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
         f.write(extracted)
     else:
         f.write([])

-def write_all_or_error(rows, filter_key, filter_value, extraction_key):
+def write_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    _filtered = filter_by_specified_key_and_value(kvs, filter_key, filter_value)
+    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

     if _filtered:
         extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
         f.write(extracted)
     else:
         error()

Next problem

• There is a little duplicate code in the part of writing or abnormal handle
• Since the processing is similar, it seems that it can be shared

step-4 Make common parts of the code that look similar (bad policy)

policy

• The code from filter to f.write in the bottom two of the three body methods is exactly the same, so cut it out.

Difference

+def filter_and_extract_and_write_if_not_empty(kvs, predicate, extraction_key):
+    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)
+
+    if _filtered:
+        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
+        f.write(extracted)

Since it was cut out, the number of lines in the main body decreased

 def write_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)
+    filter_and_extract_and_write_if_not_empty(kvs, predicate, extraction_key)

-    if _filtered:
-        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-        f.write(extracted)
-    else:
+    if not kvs:
         f.write([])

 def write_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

-    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)
+    filter_and_extract_and_write_if_not_empty(kvs, predicate, extraction_key)

-    if _filtered:
-        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-        f.write(extracted)
-    else:
+    if not kvs:
         error()

Problems with this policy

• kvs is required for abnormal handles and cannot be shared
• It is difficult to divert the extracted filter_and_extract_and_write_if_not_empty
• If a fourth body method is created in the future, is it necessary to perform processing that exactly matches this?
• Long method name
• Many words, ʻand is used If you have + ʻand, they will often do it for you
• If you do a lot, it will be difficult to understand
• If you do a lot of things, it will be difficult to match the purpose when reusing
• Only the ʻif part was cut out, so the ʻelse part remained on the main body side.
• I don't know how to use the abnormal handle unless I read all the cut out processes.

What was wrong

• The original processing flow was like this
• Data structure conversion
• Extraction
• Processing
• Export or abnormal handle
• I put it together like this
• Data structure conversion
• Extraction / Processing / Export
• or abnormal handle
• Do not cut out because the code is similar, and it will not work unless you cut out in units of processing flow

step-4 Organize the processing flow (good policy)

The above-mentioned bad policy is cut back and redone

policy

• Focus on the flow of writing the list, not the similar code

Difference

Pay attention to the second body method

This time, there is no need to explicitly separate the processing for the case with the contents of the list and the case with the empty list. Basically, if the processing to which the list is passed is the same, there is no need to be aware of the length of the list (it should not be).

It's better to pass this to f.write without knowing if it's a content or an empty list

 def write_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

     _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

-    if _filtered:
-        extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-        f.write(extracted)
-    else:
-        f.write([])
+    extracted = extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
+    f.write(extracted)

Next, pay attention to the first body method.

If this is not an empty list, the first element is taken out, processed, and listed again.

this

• Extract the first element
• Single element machining
• Relisting

The flow

• Keep in a list with a maximum length of 1
• Process all (although one) with map

I will change the idea to the flow

First, prepare a method to get the matching first element from the list with a maximum length of 1.

+def find_first(kvs, predicate):
+    for kv in kvs:
+        if predicate(kv):
+            return [kv]
+    else:
+        return []

Then you don't have to worry about the contents like the second method of the main body method. Moreover, since it is a list conversion, you can use ʻextract_by_specified_key instead of headandkey` access.

 def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = as_kvs(rows)

     _sorted = sort_by_specified_key(kvs, sort_key)
+    first = find_first(_sorted, predicate)

-    _filtered = filter(predicate, _sorted)
-
-    if 0 < len(_filtered):
-        extracted_one = head(extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key))
-        f.write([extracted_one])
-    else:
-        f.write([])
+    extracted = extract_by_specified_key(first, extraction_key)
+    f.write(extracted)

Both the ʻif clause and the ʻelse clause of the main body methods 1 and 2 fit into the particle size of" writing process without being aware of the list length " In a bad example, ʻif and ʻelse were a group of export processes, but it was bad that only ʻif` was cut out.

Next problem

• I don't care about access modifiers
• A module called csv, but there is just a list operation process

step-5 Organize the cut out methods

policy

• Organize whether each cut out is public or private

Difference

• Head and tail are likely to be used in other modules in the future, so public
• Thinking more, these guys only do list operations, so create l.py and kick it out of csv.py
• (list.py was fine, but the name conflicts with the standardlist (), so I shifted it appropriately)

l.py

+# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
+
+
+def head(xs):
+    return xs[0]
+
+
+def tail(xs):
+    return xs[1:]
+
+
+def find_first(xs, predicate):
+    for x in xs:
+        if predicate(x):
+            return [x]
+    else:
+        return []

• If you look closely, you can operate kvs to sort and extract, which is just a dictionary operation, so create d.py and expel it from csv.py.
• At that time, change the variable name from kvs to an abstract appropriate name.

d.py

+# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
+
+
+def extract_by_specified_key(xs, key):
+    return map(lambda x: x[key], xs)
+
+
+def sort_by_specified_key(xs, key):
+    return sorted(xs, key=lambda x: x[key])

• The remaining processing is a method only for csv.py, so make it private

-def as_kvs(rows):
+def __as_kvs(rows):

-def error():
+def __error():

Why not cut out the seemingly convenient ʻas_kvs`

kvs is just a temporary data structure prepared by converting the data structure expected by csv.py only to make it easier to process internally.

kvs is actually dict, but the dict type does not appear in the public arguments or return value of csv.py. In other words, there is no dict type as a function provided by the module, so it should not be exposed.

In addition, the argument type of ʻas_kvs is list, but there are restrictions such as header + [body]configuration and that all columns match, sol.py and I thought that it was preferable to make csv.py private processing rather than d.py`

Next problem

• It's hard to tell how many places the private method is used
• (It was supposed to be, but I unexpectedly went out to another module ...)

step-6 Refactor the private method that is used only once (maybe pros and cons here)

When it comes to slightly larger modules, it can be extremely difficult to know where and how many privates are used.

If you do so, it may be difficult to refactor the private method or understand the range of influence, which can be quite difficult.

There are many privates, but each one is used only once.

public 1 -> private 1 -> private 2 -> private 3
public a -> private a -> private b
public x -> private x

It is much easier to grasp the whole picture if you think that there are actually three publics. You can refactor private with peace of mind.

An example of a mixture of private, which is used only once, and private, which depends on various parts.

public 1 -> private 1
            |
            V
public a -> private a -> private b
                         ^
                         |
public x -> private x -> private y

private 1 and private x can be changed to some extent easily, but if you fix private b lightly, it will affect all public.

policy

Try to define private, which is used only from one place, in the method

This is the method I tried to do without permission, but there is no proper exhibition or discussion, but I think it is a good move and I use it a lot in disposable cords and solo projects

Difference

Since __error is used only in one place, I prepared it with def in def

By the way, I deleted the annoying __ because it became invisible from the outside anyway.

 def write_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
+    def write_or_error(kvs):
+        if kvs:
+            f.write(kvs)
+        else:
+            raise Exception("no result")
+
     kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

     _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

     extracted = d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-    if extracted:
-        f.write(extracted)
-    else:
-        __error()
+    write_or_error(extracted)

Of course, __as_kvs is used from many places, so don't change it.

The final problem

• I haven't written a test
• At this rate, file-io appears frequently, making it difficult to write tests.
• It is not impossible to test with file-io, but it may not be possible to test with processing such as standard output and email transmission.

step-7 Write the test separately for conversion and export

policy

• If you take a big picture of the processing flow, it can be divided into "conversion" and "output".
• Of these, the one who wants to check the operation firmly is the "conversion"
• In most cases the "output" is hard to test

So the responsibility of the module is limited to "conversion" and the test is implemented.

Difference

It is decided to end with return without" output " Along with that, the method name was changed from write_ to ʻextract_`.

-def write_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, predicate, extraction_key):
+def extract_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

     _sorted = d.sort_by_specified_key(kvs, sort_key)
     first = l.find_first(_sorted, predicate)

-    extracted = d.extract_by_specified_key(first, extraction_key)
-    f.write(extracted)
+    return d.extract_by_specified_key(first, extraction_key)

-def write_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
+def extract_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
     kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

     _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

-    extracted = d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-    f.write(extracted)
+    return d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)

-def write_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
-    def write_or_error(kvs):
-        if kvs:
-            f.write(kvs)
+def extract_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
+    def it_or_error(xs):
+        if xs:
+            return xs
         else:
             raise Exception("no result")

     kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

     _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

     extracted = d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
-    write_or_error(extracted)
+    return it_or_error(extracted)

As a result, ʻimport disappears, so it can be confirmed that csv.py` no longer processes file-io.

-from private import f

The test looks like this

csv_test.py

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import csv

assert csv.extract_first_one_or_empty(
    [['status', 'code'], ['dead', '001'], ['active', '003'], ['active', '002']],
    'code', lambda kvs: kvs['status'] == 'active', 'code'
) == ['002']

assert csv.extract_first_one_or_empty(
    [['status', 'code'], ['dead', '001']],
    'code', lambda kvs: kvs['status'] == 'active', 'code'
) == []

The end

Completed form

csv.py

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import l
import d


def __as_kvs(rows):
    keys = l.head(rows)
    value_rows = l.tail(rows)

    return [dict(zip(keys, value_row)) for value_row in value_rows]


def extract_first_one_or_empty(rows, sort_key, predicate, extraction_key):
    kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

    _sorted = d.sort_by_specified_key(kvs, sort_key)
    first = l.find_first(_sorted, predicate)

    return d.extract_by_specified_key(first, extraction_key)


def extract_all_or_empty(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
    kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

    return d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)


def extract_all_or_error(rows, predicate, extraction_key):
    def it_or_error(xs):
        if xs:
            return xs
        else:
            raise Exception("no result")

    kvs = __as_kvs(rows)

    _filtered = filter(predicate, kvs)

    extracted = d.extract_by_specified_key(_filtered, extraction_key)
    return it_or_error(extracted)

Compared to the first edition

• There are no comments at all, but the amount of information has not decreased because the method name is properly added.
• There is no so-called system processing like ʻif or for`, and all you have to do is call the method.
• This makes it possible to grasp the flow as if it were in English.
• (If there is an internal def, skip it and read from the beginning of the text)
• l.py and d.py that seem to be useful in the future were born
• Since it is just a "conversion" and the return is a simple list type, the caller can perform further processing after this.
• The list obtained from the return can be freely converted and incorporated into the report, as well as being continued for another conversion.
• Can write test / Yes
• It took a lot of work, but the number of lines is actually decreasing
• Even if you delete the blank lines from both sides and delete the comments from the first edition, the number of lines is smaller in the finished product without comments originally.

Tightening

The point

I can't say it in a nutshell ...

Don't write worthless comments

• Comments that just translate the code into Japanese
• Someone like return result #return result, which is unexpectedly common
• You don't need it once you get used to it, and you don't need it in the first place
• Read the code quietly
• Writing the same thing in code and comments doubles the corrections
• And no matter how you write the comment, it doesn't affect the execution, so there is no guarantee that it will be fixed correctly.
• In most cases, "means" is written

Then what is the comment to write on the contrary?

• Why
• # This process is for ~ ~ specifications, etc.
• # ~ ~ was taken into consideration and implemented like this, etc.
• `# ~ ~ is an exception because it is impossible due to ~ ~, etc.
• Specification paths, language and framework bug issue urls, etc.
• Others Basically later comment on additional information that someone cannot understand just by reading the code
• In most cases, the "purpose" is written

Even so, if you think it's painful without comments

• If the code is bad and you think so, make it private instead of a comment and name it properly as in this example.
• The comment works even if it is wrong, but the code cannot be mistaken
• Can be reused
• If you simply can't read the code due to lack of skills or are worried that you don't have Japanese, think of decommenting as training and do your best to improve your skills.
• It seems tough, but you can't lower the level of team activity to that level
• Apart from the extraordinarily difficult and magical things, coding most business systems isn't that difficult.

Bad-looking private method

• It's pretty suspicious that the method name contains ʻand`
• It's hard to understand the methods that you often do
• The more you do, the more specialized the situations you can use, so it's hard to reuse.
• I don't know how to use it without reading the implementation
• If you pass this and this as an argument, it will do that, right? Yeah, isn't it surprising to read all the way inside?
• If you can't use it without reading it, the number of lines hasn't actually decreased.

Good private method

• The private method at the end should have a simple name and one thing to do
• len () or head () or .split ()
• Of course, the private of the facade that aggregates the private is not so.
• Can be used without reading inside
• You don't try to read the contents of head () every time

Differences in handling private and public methods

• Think about publishing as a module, not just as an access modifier
• Don't publish the process that is useless by the method alone
• It will be easier and easier to prepare a lot of small publics later.
• On the contrary, the more modules that are not maintained, the more painful it will be later.

What to test

• Aim and carefully test "conversion" rather than "input" or "output"
• Test the public public methods properly
• It can be combined with confidence

Do not standardize because the code looks similar

• Organize the processing flow first and abstractly organize what you want to do
• Make common points where you want to do something similar
• There are times when the processing (means) is the same for a part of what you want to do, but you don't cut it out easily.
• Where filter is set to find_first and where it was filter until the end
• ʻIf write else empty and ʻif write else error ʻif` part

def in def

• Technique when the private method created by converting a comment into a method is called from only one place
• The narrower the effective scope, the less difficult it is to understand and the narrower the range of influence.
• Maybe you can do it in most languages

scala can be obedient

def upperJoin(xs: List[String], sep: String): String = {
    def upper(xs: List[String]): List[String] = xs.map(_.toUpperCase)
    def join(xs: List[String]): String = xs.mkString(sep)

    join(upper(xs))
}

upperJoin(List("hello", "world"), " ") // HELLO WORLD

Even in java, if you use Function <T, R> etc.

public static String upperJoin(List<String> xs, String sep) {
    Function<List<String>, List<String>> upper = _xs -> _xs.stream().map(String::toUpperCase).collect(toList());
    Function<List<String>, String> join = _xs -> _xs.stream().collect(joining(sep));

    return join.apply(upper.apply(xs));
}

upperJoin(asList("hello", "world"), " "); // HELLO WORLD

can also havekell Or rather, the idea comes from the sense of defining haskell functions by value.

upperJoin xs sep = (join . upper) xs
  where
    upper = map (map toUpper)
    join = intercalate sep

upperJoin ["hello", "world"] " " -- HELLO WORLD

So the java example is close to haskell, and you can write it in python like this: (In PEP 8, naming and binding lambda is a violation of coding norms, but I hate nesting, so I'm more likely to be alone)

def upper_join(xs, sep):
    upper = lambda xs: [x.upper() for x in xs]
    join = lambda xs: sep.join(xs)

    return join(upper(xs))

upper_join(['hello', 'world'], ' ') # HELLO WORLD

Reflection

• In the textbook, I refactor from where there is a test, but I skipped it
• I wanted to put "output" in the first edition, so I started with no tests
• Well, I think you'll notice if you make a mistake on this scale ...
• In the first place, I prefer to write a test after completion
• kvs was dict's list, so it was a little different to put it on d.py easily ...
• Well, the example exists only for the atmosphere, so hey

The end

I just wanted to try it, so I was satisfied

It doesn't matter, but when I see the black letters on the red and green spaces, I always think that it looks like a watermelon.