|
Exemplary |
Satisfactory |
Must improve |
Documentation |
- The contract of each
function is clear from the function's name, the names of its
parameters, and perhaps a one-line comment describing the result.
- When names are not enough, each function is documented with
a contract that explains what
the function returns, in terms of the parameters, which are mentioned
by name.
- From the name of a function, the names of its parameters, and the
accompanying documentation, it is easy to determine how each parameter
affects the result.
- The contract of each
function is written without case analysis, or case analysis was
unavoidable.
- Documentation appears consistent with the code being described.
|
- A function's contract omits
some parameters.
- A function's documentation mentions every parameter, but does not
specify a contract.
- A function's documentation includes information that is redundant
with the code, e.g., "this function has two parameters."
- A function's contract omits
some constraints on parameters, e.g., forgetting to say that the
contract requires nonnegative parameters.
- A function's contract
includes a case analysis that could have been avoided, perhaps by
letting some behavior go unspecified.
|
- A function is not named after the thing it returns, and the
function's documentation does not say what it returns.
- A function's documentation includes a narrative description of what
happens in the body of the function, instead of
a contract that mentions only
the parameters and result.
- A function's documentation neither specifies a contract nor mentions
every parameter.
- There are multiple functions that are not part of the specification
of the problem, and from looking just at the names of the functions
and the names of their parameters, it's hard for us to figure out what
the functions do.
- A function's contract
includes a redundant case analysis.
- Documentation appears inconsistent with the code being described.
|
Form |
- All code fits in 80 columns.
- The submitted code contains no tab characters.
- All code respects the offside
rule
- Indentation is consistent everywhere.
- In Impcore, if a construct spans multiple lines, its closing
parenthesis appears at the end of a line, possibly grouped with one or
more other closing parentheses.
- No code is commented out.
- Solution file contains no distracting test cases or print
statements.
|
- One or two lines are wider than 80 columns.
- The code contains one or two violations of
the offside rule
- In one or two places, code is not indented in the same way as
structurally similar code elsewhere.
- Solution file may contain clearly marked test functions,
but they are never executed. It's easy to read the code without having
to look at the test functions.
|
- Three or more lines are wider than 80 columns.
- An ASCII tab character lurks somewhere in the submission.
- The code contains three or more violations of
the offside rule
- The code is not indented consistently.
- The closing parenthesis of a multi-line construct is followed by
more code (or by an open parenthesis) on the same line.
- A closing parenthesis appears on a line by itself.
- Solution file contains code that has been commented out.
- Solution file contains test cases that are run when loaded.
- When loaded, solution file prints test results.
|
Naming |
- Each function is named either with a noun describing the result it
returns, or with a verb describing the action it does to its
argument. (Or the function is a predicate and is named as suggested
below.)
- A function that is used as a predicate (for
if
or while ) has a name that is formed by writing a property
followed by a question mark. Examples might include even?
or prime? . (Applies only if the language permits question
marks in names.)
- Or, the code defines no predicates.
- In a function definition, the name of each parameter is a noun
saying what, in the world of ideas, the parameter represents.
- Or the name of a parameter is the name of an entity in the problem
statement, or a name from the underlying mathematics.
- Or the name of a parameter is short and conventional. For example, a
magnitude or count might be
n or m . An index
might be i , j , or k . A pointer
might be p ; a string might be s . A variable
might be x ; an expression might be e .
|
- Function names contain appropriate nouns and verbs, but the names
are more complex than needed to convey the function's meaning.
- Function names contain some suitable nouns and verbs, but they
don't convey enough information about what the function returns or
does.
- A function that is used as a predicate (for
if
or while ) does not have a name that ends in a question
mark. (Applies only if the language permits question marks in
names.)
- The name of a parameter is a noun phrase formed from multiple words.
- Although the name of a parameter is not short and conventional, not
an English noun, and not a name from the math or the problem, it is
still recognizable---perhaps as an abbreviation or a compound of
abbreviations.
|
- Function names include verbs that are too generic, like
"calculate", "process", "get",
"find", or "check"
- Auxiliary functions are given names that don't state
their contracts, but that
instead indicate a vague relationship with another function. Often
such names are formed by combining the name of the other function with
a suffix such
as
aux , helper , 1 , or
even _ .
- Course staff cannot identify the connection between a function's
name and what it returns or what it does.
- The name of a parameter is a compound phrase phrase which could be
reduced to a single noun.
- The name of some parameter is not recognizable—or at least,
course staff cannot figure it out.
|
Structure |
- The code of each function is so clear that, with the help of the
function's contract, course staff can easily tell whether the code is
correct or incorrect.
- There's only as much code as is needed to do the job.
- In every case analysis, all cases are necessary.
- In the body of a recursive function, the code that handles the base
case(s) appears before any recursive calls.
- Solutions are recursive, as requested in the assignment.
- Expressions cannot be made any simpler by application of algebraic
laws.
|
- Course staff have to work to tell whether the code is correct or
incorrect.
- There's somewhat more code than is needed to do the job.
- In some case analyses, there are cases which are redundant (i.e.,
the situation is covered by other cases which are also present in the
code).
- Code for one or more base cases appears after a recursive call.
|
- From reading the code, course staff cannot tell whether it is
correct or incorrect.
- From reading the code, course staff cannot easily tell what it is
doing.
- There's about twice as much code as is needed to do the job.
- A significant fraction of the case analyses in the code, maybe a
third, are redundant.
- Code uses
while or set (serious
fault)
- Code can be simplified by applying algebraic laws. For example, the
code says
(+ x 0) , but it could say just x .
|
Correctness |
- Impcore functions test correct with no faults.
- Or, under test, Impcore functions have only tiny faults, typically
arising from problems with arithmetic overflow or from some confusion
about exactly what numbers are prime.
|
- Testing Impcore solutions identifies a few faults.
- Or, testing Impcore solutions identifies a single fault that shows a
lack of understanding.
|
- Testing Impcore code shows a preponderance of faults.
- Impcore code fails because the names of helper functions are spelled
differently in different places (serious fault).
- When we attempt to load Impcore code, there are errors (No
Credit).
|
Exemplary work typically earns a Very Good grade; if exemplary work truly
excels, it may earn an Excellent grade. Satisfactory work typically earns a
Good grade. Work that must improve typically earns a Fair grade, but work
that has a serious fault may earn a Poor grade, and as noted in the table, a
very serious fault may result in a grade of No Credit.