Timeline for answer to How to apply refactoring on Latex code? by MS-SPO
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2024 at 16:13 | vote | accept | MS-SPO | ||
| Aug 28, 2024 at 13:10 | history | edited | MS-SPO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected link for the Bubble example; same for Vector example
|
| Aug 28, 2024 at 13:07 | comment | added | MS-SPO | Myth busted? ;-) // I think seasoned programmers have this refactor or a similar habit. Novices will benefit quickly, e.g. from reuse, and develop better coding skill. // If you think about it, refactoring leads to all, most or many constant- and functional-like structures being moved to the preamble and reveal the documents relevant internal structure. This may be more valid for e.g. Tikz and less for a fully textual content. | |
| Aug 28, 2024 at 1:33 | comment | added | cfr | hmm ... 'refactoring', 'prototype'. demystifying terms is turning out to be strangely disappointing ;). | |
| Aug 27, 2024 at 8:46 | comment | added | MS-SPO |
Thank you. // Besides the concept my focus was procedural, as refactoring happens step-by-step, many times per code. // Refactoring styles differ: mine was "brevity", in order to see relevant structures more easily. // In later refactoring steps one may conclude, that e.g. aw was a bad, insufficient or misleading choice. Just go with the flow, and let the magic happen. // In a sense refactored code is never finished: stopped working on it at best.
|
|
| Aug 25, 2024 at 21:24 | comment | added | cfr |
I'm not convinced by the actual example, but I appreciate the conceptual explanations. I would generally try to use more semantic markup than aw which gets confusing if you later decide you want the anchors to be south east, say. and ``world` is much more readable and less cluttered than \wrld{}.
|
|
| Aug 25, 2024 at 21:11 | comment | added | cfr | not to me. assuming the words are all supposed to be english, it's obvious the second sentence has errors, but it isn't obvious what it is supposed to be. it isn't as if 'The ditch was no dutch.' makes sense. (certainly not obvious sense.) | |
| Aug 25, 2024 at 18:07 | history | edited | MS-SPO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2024 at 18:06 | comment | added | MS-SPO | Thank you. // Yes. Thought this was obvious enough. | |
| Aug 25, 2024 at 17:59 | comment | added | cfr |
I've only skimmed this, but looks very useful - thank you! but you started with ditch and dietch and ended up with only ditches. are we supposed to assume the other is a typo?
|
|
| Aug 25, 2024 at 17:06 | history | answered | MS-SPO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |