Issue#4 code splitter

[Cpt-xx]

Okay, this is my proposal to resolve issue #4. I've created a DefaultSourceFileMapper which is instantiated with a comment line mapper, a end of line mapper and a new line mapper.

There are tests which show the usage of the DefaultSourceFileMapper.

Let me know if this is what you wanted. I will now go and see if your old testcases can be reused as input for the DefaultSourceFileMapperTest.

[fragmatyc]

Hi Cor, I will accept the pull request, but please, do the following:

• Remove you IDE's auto comments
• Add the licence header in each file
• Make your tests cases start with testThat
• Add this when you access an instance variable, a method or a function.
• Add the prefixes p and l respectively in front of parameters and local variables.
• Add a test case in your comments withdrawal solution for the following case:

Input: "Test that \"some delimiters should not be broken / even if they contain/ other delimiters and if they /* \" overlap.*/"

Output: "Test that \"some delimiters should not be broken / even if they contain/ other delimiters and if they /* \" overlap.*/"

[Cpt-xx]

I will look into this. I have to admit that I missed the usage of the "comments in string should be ignored"-requirement. I'll work on that one.

I'm not too sure whether you should have merged the branch into the master, as the issue cannot be closed (as you rightfully say). There are too many review comments and the issue is not resolved correctly. A more correct way would have been that you reject the pull-request and let me continue to work on that branch until the issue was resolved correctly. By rejecting the pull-request you do not remove the newly created branch and by not merging you keep the master clean. That way you don't have to rely on my obedience in cleaning up the code :wink: .

I will now fetch, merge and push the modifications through my local repo and the fork and I'll open a second branch to perform the cleaning up.

Be patient, I hope I can do it this week.