The rule I see is functions should be fairly atomic and almost obvious what they do in context of the code.
At least for my small brain that’s how I like it. I can understand some complex abstractions but rembering that actually this function behaves in three different ways depending on what flag is set is awful. It means you could look at one example and be totally wrong in another. Ideally you could guess the functions purpose even in a black box setting based on inputs outputs and the name should then make it obvious.
The example that the other commenter gave did not require the user to input the flags. As far as I understand, they mean there would be a number of secondary functions that will call the other with the correct parameter.
The rule I see is functions should be fairly atomic and almost obvious what they do in context of the code.
At least for my small brain that’s how I like it. I can understand some complex abstractions but rembering that actually this function behaves in three different ways depending on what flag is set is awful. It means you could look at one example and be totally wrong in another. Ideally you could guess the functions purpose even in a black box setting based on inputs outputs and the name should then make it obvious.
The example that the other commenter gave did not require the user to input the flags. As far as I understand, they mean there would be a number of secondary functions that will call the other with the correct parameter.
Fair point. My point still stands on it breaking the black box test. Where the input can wildly effect the logic that creates the output.