Template talk:User couple

It could be a bit more compact by only using a "color" parameter (instead of separate "blue"/"yellow"/"octarine"...) and by moving the static bits outside the conditional parts. Here's one way:

I tried putting all the color info in a single #switch, but the |s don't parse correctly. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Refactored to use a helper template = squeaky clean code. --◄mendel► 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. I went and simplified the #if part anyway.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not simpler if it's harder to read and to change, and with the new parser it doesn't matter so much anyway because the unused branch is no longer parsed, so its size doesn't matter. But I see you already undid it. --◄mendel► 17:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And a subtemplate is simpler? Screw it, I can't make it work right.  I'm having a terrible morning anyway.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be writing a function if you were coding. And sorry for your morning, I hope your day's going to get better. --◄mendel► 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I only use functions/subroutines if the code needs to be reused at different places in the program, or, if it can be reused over different programs, I'll split it out to a module/library. Otherwise, it's been my experience that breaking code up into function calls only creates unnecessary obfuscation.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Obfuscation? Yeah, that can happen, but I think in this case the coupling is loose enough (the subpage is easy to use on its own, even though it doesn't add the category) so that the code is actually less obfuscated than before. But I accept that to some degree that is a matter of taste. --◄mendel► 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)