HELL NO! If you split that function into three, but these always have to be called in succession, you win nothing but make your code WAY harder to read/follow.
What do you gain from that approach, compared to comments, and appropriate whitespace? If you spread out your function over three, you now potentially have triple the moving parts. You have to manage in- and output, and you have to hope noone coming after you sees your subfunction, and assumes it’s there for using.
HELL NO! If you split that function into three, but these always have to be called in succession, you win nothing but make your code WAY harder to read/follow.
Well named functions, called in succession increase readability, not decrease.
What do you gain from that approach, compared to comments, and appropriate whitespace? If you spread out your function over three, you now potentially have triple the moving parts. You have to manage in- and output, and you have to hope noone coming after you sees your subfunction, and assumes it’s there for using.