Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 800563
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T23:18:29+00:00 2026-05-14T23:18:29+00:00

If I have a method that does multiple, related things, is it good practice

  • 0

If I have a method that does multiple, related things, is it good practice to stick each “thing” that the method does into a seperate block?

Ex.

{
int var
//Code
}

{
int var
//More Code
}

It would help reduce the number of local variables, and make the code more readable, but I’m not sure if it’s a good idea.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T23:18:30+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 11:18 pm

    Well, it’s certainly good practice to restrict the scope of variables as much as possible. They’re less likely to be re-used unnecessarily, and you’re more likely to define them when you declare them, which avoids bugs due to undefined variables and such. There are also plenty of cases where you have an object which does something while it’s constructed and when it’s destroyed, and you want to scope that (for instance, the hour glass in MFC is displayed while its object exists and disappears when it’s destroyed in MFC; objects for locking and unlocking mutexes are another good example), and in such cases, scoping the variables with braces makes good sense. So, there are plenty of cases where it makes good sense to create blocks of code specifically to scope variables.

    However, there are some problems with doing this heavily.

    1. It can become hard to read if you have a lot of code blocks within a function.

    2. If you try too hard to scope variables as tightly as possible, you run into issues with having to declare variables which need larger scoping earlier than you would otherwise and aren’t always able to define them when declaring them.

    3. Functions often express what you’re trying to do far better.

    So, using extra braces to scope variables can be good practice (reducing the scope of variables as much as reasonably possible certainly is), but in many cases, it’s far better to break up your code into multiple functions. Code can be far easier to understand when you have named functions than arbitrary blocks of code. So, if you’re in a position where you’re looking to declare very many separate blocks of code within a function, consider breaking it up into multiple functions – this is especially true if each of those blocks is directly within the function rather than nested further. So, cases of

    T func(...)
    {
        {
            ...
        }
    
        {
            ...
        }
    }
    

    would likely be better broken into multiple functions than separate blocks.

    There are certainly times when separate blocks can be good and useful, but generally separate functions would be better.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

If I have a method that does something with multiple Subsonic ActiveRecords and doesn
I'm trying to not repeat code, so I have a method that does a
I know that an interface does not have a body, just a method definition.
I have a simple method that just does two lines and tries to return
I have a method that extracts multiple zip files but can't delete them until
I have method that returns Drawable , and if its Bitmap object is recycled
I have method that returned NSManagedObject and I don't know what kind of NSManagedObject
I have method that returns module path of given class name def findModulePath(path, className):
I have a method that receives something and it needs to determine the type
I have a method that uses ARC and takes an NSError pointer and I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.