Thanks: yeah, that's indeed pretty bad. FWIW, I don't see any tests for this, nor it looks simple to test it, so I don't consider this "testable" code — it loo

Thanks: yeah, that's indeed pretty bad. FWIW, I don't see any tests for this, nor it looks simple to test it, so I don't consider this "testable" code — it looks like this was made to make other code testable, yet it fails to be testable itself. Also, naming is horrible as well (also noted in the article).