4 ms·

Takeaway: Representing dependencies explicitly in code will avoid you lots of trouble. One way to achieve that with an object of type X that requires an object

Takeaway: Representing dependencies explicitly in code will avoid you lots of trouble. One way to achieve that with an object of type X that requires an object of type Y is to require an y in the constructor for x's.

sh1mmer 18y ago
Maybe I'm being slow, but I didn't get how they were explicitly declaring it except in the test, and I don't see how one test in a whole suite would help a newbie discover this problem. Are they actually implying the constructor should throw an exception moaning about lack of X dependency?
- Hexstream 18y ago
  You can't call the constructor without passing the reference to the object the new object depends on... Thus you can't inadvertantly initialize the objects in the wrong order.
  - sh1mmer 18y ago
    Makes sense, thanks!