I don&#x27;t remember the particulars. But they&#x27;re not that important to the nature of the issue (though recognizing them as a bad smell is) - any time you have a reused bit of code (be it via inheritance, composition, or even just a function), you run the risk of that kind of complexity. And this can be hard to spot; a function that takes an argument that it then uses as a conditional in a few places can hide a lot of complexity.<p>That is, if I have a (pseudocode) function<p><pre><code>  foo(bar) {
    &#x2F;&#x2F;C
    &#x2F;&#x2F;D
    &#x2F;&#x2F;D
    &#x2F;&#x2F;C
    &#x2F;&#x2F;D
    &#x2F;&#x2F;C
  }
</code></pre>
where &#x2F;&#x2F;D indicates a line that does not change its behavior based on the passed in bar, and &#x2F;&#x2F;C indicates a line that does (and in complex ways; if bar is of type bar1 or bar3 do X, else if it&#x27;s of type bar 5 do Y, else do Z), the code has a lot of interrelated complexities, even though it&#x27;s DRY. It&#x27;s better to have<p><pre><code>  foo(bar) {
    switch(bar)
      case(...) {
        foo1(bar)
      }
      &#x2F;&#x2F;etc
  }
</code></pre>
so that the implementations are completely different, that even though there will be copied code between foo1, foo2, etc, it&#x27;s clear what is happening, and you change any bit of foo1, foo2, etc, without fear of it breaking something else (whereas in the original, changing any of those lines marked &#x2F;&#x2F;C could break unrelated functionality). The issues with the first, and the improved clarity and reduced coupling with the latter, holds true regardless of whether the code is in an inherited object (where the first function would translate to a foo implemented in the superclass, with the &#x2F;&#x2F;C lines being calls to abstract methods, that are then implemented in the subclasses, and the latter function, foo would be an abstract method itself, and all subclasses implementing their own version, that is partially identical to each others&#x27;), or via composition.