Search Results

Search found 34350 results on 1374 pages for 'style issue'.

Page 121/1374 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

  • 'AND' vs '&&' as operator

    - by ts
    Actually, i am facing a codebase where developpers decided to use 'AND' and 'OR' instead of '&&' and '||'. I know that there is difference in operators precedence (&& goes before 'and'), but with given framework (prestashop to be precise) is clearly not a reason. So, my question: which version are you using? Is 'and' more readable than '&&'? || there is ~ difference?

    Read the article

  • Use continue or Checked Exceptions when checking and processing objects

    - by Johan Pelgrim
    I'm processing, let's say a list of "Document" objects. Before I record the processing of the document successful I first want to check a couple of things. Let's say, the file referring to the document should be present and something in the document should be present. Just two simple checks for the example but think about 8 more checks before I have successfully processed my document. What would have your preference? for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { if (!fileIsPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("File is not present"); continue; } if (!isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("Something is not in the document"); continue; } doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } Or for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { try { fileIsPresent(document); isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document); doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } catch (ProcessingException e) { doSomethingWithTheExceptionalCase(e.getMessage()); } } public boolean fileIsPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("File is not present"); } public boolean isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("Something is not in the document"); } What is more readable. What is best? Is there even a better approach of doing this (maybe using a design pattern of some sort)? As far as readability goes my preference currently is the Exception variant... What is yours?

    Read the article

  • How do you assign a variable with the result of a if..else block?

    - by Pierre Olivier Martel
    I had an argument with a colleague about the best way to assign a variable in an if..else block. His orignal code was : @products = if params[:category] Category.find(params[:category]).products else Product.all end I rewrote it this way : if params[:category] @products = Category.find(params[:category]).products else @products = Product.all end This could also be rewritten with a one-liner using a ternery operator (? :) but let's pretend that product assignment was longer than a 100 character and couldn't fit in one line. Which of the two is clearer to you? The first solution takes a little less space but I thought that declaring a variable and assigning it three lines after can be more error prone. I also like to see my if and else aligned, makes it easier for my brain to parse it!

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

    - by Art
    While it is recommended to use the following construct to check whether request is POST, if request.method == 'POST': pass It is likely that people will find if request.POST: pass to be more elegant and concise. Are there any reasons not to use it, apart from personal preference?

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • Vim 80 column layout concerns

    - by cdleary
    I feel like the way I do 80-column indication in Vim is incorrect: set columns=80. At times I also set textwidth but I like to be able to see and anticipate line overflow with the set columns alternative. This has some unfortunate side effects -- I can't set number for fear of splitting between files that have different orders of line numbers; i.e. < 100 line files and = 100 line files will require two different set columns values because of the extra column used for the additional digit display. I also start new (g)Vim sessions instead of splitting windows vertically, which forces me to use the window manager's clipboard -- vsplits force me to do set columns every time I open or close a pane, so starting a new session is less hassle. How do you handle the 80-character indication when you want to set numbers, vertically split, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What does 'foo' really mean?

    - by Prakash
    I hope this qualifies as a programming question, as in any programming tutorial, you eventually come across 'foo' in the code examples. (yeah, right?) what does 'foo' really mean? If it is meant to mean nothing, when did it begin to be used so? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Should a connect method return a value?

    - by Matt S
    I was looking at some code I've inherited and I couldn't decided if I like a bit of code. Basically, there is a method that looks like the following: bool Connect(connection parameters){...} It returns true if it connects successfully, false otherwise. I've written code like that in the past, but now, when I see this method I don't like it for a number of reasons. Its easy to write code that just ignores the returned value, or not realize it returns a value. There is no way to return an error message. Checking the return of the method doesn't really look nice: if (!Connect(...)){....} I could rewrite code to throw an exception when it doesn't successfully connect, but I don't consider that an exceptional situation. Instead I'm thinking of refactoring the code as follows: void Connect(Connection Parameters, out bool successful, out string errorMessage){...} I like that other developers have to provide the success and error strings so they know the method has error conditions and I can know return a message Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks -Matt

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • C#: Get a list of every value for a given key in a set of dictionaries?

    - by Rosarch
    How can I write this code more cleanly/concisely? /// <summary> /// Creates a set of valid URIs. /// </summary> /// <param name="levelVariantURIDicts">A collection of dictionaries of the form: /// dict["filePath"] == theFilePath </param> /// <returns></returns> private ICollection<string> URIsOfDicts(ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> levelVariantURIDicts) { ICollection<string> result = new HashSet<string>(); foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in levelVariantURIDicts) { result.Add(dict["filePath"]); } return result; }

    Read the article

  • why those chinese indent code so differently?

    - by winston
    currently i am working with some programmer from shanghai i notice they have some coding indentation like these: if(1==1 && 2==2) { a = 3; } else { b = 4; } however i am accustomed to: if (1==1 && 2==2) { a = 3; } else { b = 4; } what do you think? how could i get rid of different coding styles within a single program file?

    Read the article

  • Namespaces and deserialization issue

    - by CaffGeek
    UPDATE: You can run the code at the end of this to recreate and see the error I am having and hopefully solve it! UPDATE2: It's not the removal of the xmlns="" that's the issue... as you can remove it from the initial xml string. The problem is with the [XmlType(TypeName = "Systems")] somehow causing it to be added... UPDATE3: Turns out the problem is in here, I need to set the TypeName based on what is in the existing, XmlTypeAttribute if it already exists on the class.... xmlAttributes.XmlType = new XmlTypeAttribute { Namespace = "" }; I get the following XML as a string from a webservice <Systems xmlns=""> <System id="1"> <sys_name>ALL</sys_name> </System> <System id="2"> <sys_name>asdfasdf</sys_name> </System> <System id="3"> <sys_name>fasdfasf</sys_name> </System> <System id="4"> <sys_name>asdfasdfasdf</sys_name> </System> </Systems> I then execute this, to convert it to an object result = XElement.Parse(xmlResult.OuterXml).Deserialize<AwayRequestSystems>(); Strangely though, in the Deserialize method, while the RemoveAllNamespaces works and returns the xml without the namespace I get the error <Systems xmlns=''> was not expected. in the catch when return (T) serializer.Deserialize(reader); executes! Why is it doing this? The xmlns is GONE!!! EXECUTABLE CODE! (Just put it in a test project) using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Linq; using System.Xml; using System.Xml.Linq; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System.Xml.Serialization; namespace DeserializationTest { [TestClass] public class UnitTest1 { public TestContext TestContext { get; set; } [TestMethod] public void RemoveXmlnsFromSystems() { var xml = XElement.Parse(@"<Systems xmlns=""""> <System id=""1""> <sys_name>ALL</sys_name> </System> <System id=""2""> <sys_name>ePO</sys_name> </System> <System id=""3""> <sys_name>iEFT</sys_name> </System> <System id=""4""> <sys_name>Away Requests</sys_name> </System> <System id=""5""> <sys_name>RP3</sys_name> </System> </Systems>"); var systems = xml.Deserialize<AwayRequestSystems>(); Assert.IsInstanceOfType(systems, typeof(AwayRequestSystems)); var xmlnsFree = xml.RemoveAllNamespaces(); var str = xmlnsFree.ToString(); Debug.WriteLine(str); Assert.AreNotEqual("Error", xmlnsFree.Name.ToString(), "Serialization Error"); Assert.IsFalse(str.Contains("xmlns"), "Xmlns still exists"); } } [XmlType(TypeName = "Systems")] public class AwayRequestSystems : List<AwayRequestSystem> { } [XmlType(TypeName = "System")] public class AwayRequestSystem { [XmlAttribute("id")] public int ID { get; set; } [XmlElement("sys_name")] public string Name { get; set; } } public static class XmlSerializerFactory { private static Dictionary<Type, XmlSerializer> _serializers = new Dictionary<Type, XmlSerializer>(); public static void ResetCache() { _serializers = new Dictionary<Type, XmlSerializer>(); } public static XmlSerializer GetSerializerFor(Type typeOfT) { if (!_serializers.ContainsKey(typeOfT)) { var xmlAttributes = new XmlAttributes(); var xmlAttributeOverrides = new XmlAttributeOverrides(); Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("XmlSerializerFactory.GetSerializerFor(typeof({0}));", typeOfT)); xmlAttributes.XmlType = new XmlTypeAttribute { Namespace = "" }; xmlAttributes.Xmlns = false; var types = new List<Type> { typeOfT, typeOfT.BaseType }; foreach (var property in typeOfT.GetProperties()) { types.Add(property.PropertyType); } types.RemoveAll(t => t.ToString().StartsWith("System.")); foreach (var type in types) { if (xmlAttributeOverrides[type] == null) xmlAttributeOverrides.Add(type, xmlAttributes); } var newSerializer = new XmlSerializer(typeOfT, xmlAttributeOverrides); //var newSerializer = new XmlSerializer(typeOfT, xmlAttributeOverrides, types.ToArray(), new XmlRootAttribute(), string.Empty); //var newSerializer = new XmlSerializer(typeOfT, string.Empty); _serializers.Add(typeOfT, newSerializer); } return _serializers[typeOfT]; } } public static class XElementExtensions { public static XElement RemoveAllNamespaces(this XElement source) { if (source.HasAttributes) source.Attributes().Where(a => a.Name.LocalName.Equals("xmlns")).Remove(); return source.HasElements ? new XElement(source.Name.LocalName, source.Attributes()/*.Where(a => !a.Name.LocalName.Equals("xmlns"))*/, source.Elements().Select(el => RemoveAllNamespaces(el)) ) : new XElement(source.Name.LocalName) { Value = source.Value }; } } public static class SerializationExtensions { public static XElement Serialize(this object source) { try { var serializer = XmlSerializerFactory.GetSerializerFor(source.GetType()); var xdoc = new XDocument(); using (var writer = xdoc.CreateWriter()) { serializer.Serialize(writer, source, new XmlSerializerNamespaces(new[] { new XmlQualifiedName("", "") })); } var result = (xdoc.Document != null) ? xdoc.Document.Root : new XElement("Error", "Document Missing"); return result.RemoveAllNamespaces(); } catch (Exception x) { return new XElement("Error", x.ToString()); } } public static T Deserialize<T>(this XElement source) where T : class { //try //{ var serializer = XmlSerializerFactory.GetSerializerFor(typeof(T)); var cleanxml = source.RemoveAllNamespaces(); var reader = cleanxml.CreateReader(); return (T)serializer.Deserialize(reader); //} //catch (Exception x) //{ // return null; //} } } }

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to use whitespace while programming?

    - by Emmanuel Smith
    I'm fairly new to programming and from learning I have seen different ways of formatting code, comments, etc; and have been recommended on different techniques. I mostly program in C#, C++, and Java so I want to know what is the the best way to layout code so that if other people where to go through it, they would be impressed by how simple and easy to understand it is. I would like to know the same thing for commenting as well.

    Read the article

  • Backbone.js Adding Model to Collection Issue

    - by jtmgdevelopment
    I am building a test application in Backbone.js (my first app using Backbone). The app goes like this: Load Data from server "Plans" Build list of plans and show to screen There is a button to add a new plan Once new plan is added, add to collection ( do not save to server as of now ) redirect to index page and show the new collection ( includes the plan you just added) My issue is with item 5. When I save a plan, I add the model to the collection then redirect to the initial view. At this point, I fetch data from the server. When I fetch data from the server, this overwrites my collection and my added model is gone. How can I prevent this from happening? I have found a way to do this but it is definitely not the correct way at all. Below you will find my code examples for this. Thanks for the help. PlansListView View: var PlansListView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'ul', initialize : function() { _.bindAll( this, 'render', 'close' ); //reset the view if the collection is reset this.collection.bind( 'reset', this.render , this ); }, render : function() { _.each( this.collection.models, function( plan ){ $( this.el ).append( new PlansListItemView({ model: plan }).render().el ); }, this ); return this; }, close : function() { $( this.el ).unbind(); $( this.el ).remove(); } });//end NewPlanView Save Method var NewPlanView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'section', template : _.template( $( '#plan-form-template' ).html() ), events : { 'click button.save' : 'savePlan', 'click button.cancel' : 'cancel' }, intialize: function() { _.bindAll( this, 'render', 'save', 'cancel' ); }, render : function() { $( '#container' ).append( $( this.el ).html(this.template( this.model.toJSON() )) ); return this; }, savePlan : function( event ) { this.model.set({ name : 'bad plan', date : 'friday', desc : 'blah', id : Math.floor(Math.random()*11), total_stops : '2' }); this.collection.add( this.model ); app.navigate('', true ); event.preventDefault(); }, cancel : function(){} }); Router (default method): index : function() { this.container.empty(); var self = this; //This is a hack to get this to work //on default page load fetch all plans from the server //if the page has loaded ( this.plans is defined) set the updated plans collection to the view //There has to be a better way!! if( ! this.plans ) { this.plans = new Plans(); this.plans.fetch({ success: function() { self.plansListView = new PlansListView({ collection : self.plans }); $( '#container' ).append( self.plansListView.render().el ); if( self.requestedID ) self.planDetails( self.requestedID ); } }); } else { this.plansListView = new PlansListView({ collection : this.plans }); $( '#container' ).append( self.plansListView.render().el ); if( this.requestedID ) self.planDetails( this.requestedID ); } }, New Plan Route: newPlan : function() { var plan = new Plan({name: 'Cool Plan', date: 'Monday', desc: 'This is a great app'}); this.newPlan = new NewPlanView({ model : plan, collection: this.plans }); this.newPlan.render(); } FULL CODE ( function( $ ){ var Plan = Backbone.Model.extend({ defaults: { name : '', date : '', desc : '' } }); var Plans = Backbone.Collection.extend({ model : Plan, url : '/data/' }); $( document ).ready(function( e ){ var PlansListView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'ul', initialize : function() { _.bindAll( this, 'render', 'close' ); //reset the view if the collection is reset this.collection.bind( 'reset', this.render , this ); }, render : function() { _.each( this.collection.models, function( plan ){ $( this.el ).append( new PlansListItemView({ model: plan }).render().el ); }, this ); return this; }, close : function() { $( this.el ).unbind(); $( this.el ).remove(); } });//end var PlansListItemView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'li', template : _.template( $( '#list-item-template' ).html() ), events :{ 'click a' : 'listInfo' }, render : function() { $( this.el ).html( this.template( this.model.toJSON() ) ); return this; }, listInfo : function( event ) { } });//end var PlanView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'section', events : { 'click button.add-plan' : 'newPlan' }, template: _.template( $( '#plan-template' ).html() ), initialize: function() { _.bindAll( this, 'render', 'close', 'newPlan' ); }, render : function() { $( '#container' ).append( $( this.el ).html( this.template( this.model.toJSON() ) ) ); return this; }, newPlan : function( event ) { app.navigate( 'newplan', true ); }, close : function() { $( this.el ).unbind(); $( this.el ).remove(); } });//end var NewPlanView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName : 'section', template : _.template( $( '#plan-form-template' ).html() ), events : { 'click button.save' : 'savePlan', 'click button.cancel' : 'cancel' }, intialize: function() { _.bindAll( this, 'render', 'save', 'cancel' ); }, render : function() { $( '#container' ).append( $( this.el ).html(this.template( this.model.toJSON() )) ); return this; }, savePlan : function( event ) { this.model.set({ name : 'bad plan', date : 'friday', desc : 'blah', id : Math.floor(Math.random()*11), total_stops : '2' }); this.collection.add( this.model ); app.navigate('', true ); event.preventDefault(); }, cancel : function(){} }); var AppRouter = Backbone.Router.extend({ container : $( '#container' ), routes : { '' : 'index', 'viewplan/:id' : 'planDetails', 'newplan' : 'newPlan' }, initialize: function(){ }, index : function() { this.container.empty(); var self = this; //This is a hack to get this to work //on default page load fetch all plans from the server //if the page has loaded ( this.plans is defined) set the updated plans collection to the view //There has to be a better way!! if( ! this.plans ) { this.plans = new Plans(); this.plans.fetch({ success: function() { self.plansListView = new PlansListView({ collection : self.plans }); $( '#container' ).append( self.plansListView.render().el ); if( self.requestedID ) self.planDetails( self.requestedID ); } }); } else { this.plansListView = new PlansListView({ collection : this.plans }); $( '#container' ).append( self.plansListView.render().el ); if( this.requestedID ) self.planDetails( this.requestedID ); } }, planDetails : function( id ) { if( this.plans ) { this.plansListView.close(); this.plan = this.plans.get( id ); if( this.planView ) this.planView.close(); this.planView = new PlanView({ model : this.plan }); this.planView.render(); } else{ this.requestedID = id; this.index(); } if( ! this.plans ) this.index(); }, newPlan : function() { var plan = new Plan({name: 'Cool Plan', date: 'Monday', desc: 'This is a great app'}); this.newPlan = new NewPlanView({ model : plan, collection: this.plans }); this.newPlan.render(); } }); var app = new AppRouter(); Backbone.history.start(); }); })( jQuery );

    Read the article

  • Are there any reasons to make all fields and variables final?

    - by Roman
    In my current project I noticed that all class fields and variable inside methods are declared with final modifier whenever it's possible. Just like here: private final XMLStreamWriter _xmlStreamWriter; private final Marshaller _marshaller; private final OutputStream _documentStream; private final OutputStream _stylesStream; private final XMLStreamWriter _stylesStreamWriter; private final StyleMerger _styleMerger; public DocumentWriter(PhysicalPackage physicalPackage) throws IOException { final Package pkg = new Package(physicalPackage); final Part wordDocumentPart = pkg.createPart( "/word/document.xml", "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document.main+xml", "http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships/officeDocument"); // styles.xml final Pair<Part, String> wordStylesPart = wordDocumentPart.createRelatedPart(...); ... } Are there any reasons to do so? p.s. As I know project is not supposed to be multithreaded (at least I've heard nothing about it).

    Read the article

  • In Java it seems Public constructors are always a bad coding practice

    - by Adam Gent
    This maybe a controversial question and may not be suited for this forum (so I will not be insulted if you choose to close this question). It seems given the current capabilities of Java there is no reason to make constructors public ... ever. Friendly, private, protected are OK but public no. It seems that its almost always a better idea to provide a public static method for creating objects. Every Java Bean serialization technology (JAXB, Jackson, Spring etc...) can call a protected or private no-arg constructor. My questions are: I have never seen this practice decreed or written down anywhere? Maybe Bloch mentions it but I don't own is book. Is there a use case other than perhaps not being super DRY that I missed? EDIT: I explain why static methods are better. .1. For one you get better type inference. For example See Guava's http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/CollectionUtilitiesExplained .2. As a designer of the class you can later change what is returned with a static method. .3. Dealing with constructor inheritance is painful especially if you have to pre-calculate something.

    Read the article

  • Who likes #regions in Visual Studio?

    - by Nicholas
    Personally I can't stand region tags, but clearly they have wide spread appeal for organizing code, so I want to test the temperature of the water for other MS developer's take on this idea. My personal feeling is that any sort of silly trick to simplify code only acts to encourage terrible coding behavior, like lack of cohesion, unclear intention and poor or incomplete coding standards. One programmer told me that code regions helped encourage coding standards by making it clear where another programmer should put his or her contributions. But, to be blunt, this sounds like a load of horse manure to me. If you have a standard, it is the programmer's job to understand what that standard is... you should't need to define it in every single class file. And, nothing is more annoying than having all of your code collapsed when you open a file. I know that cntrl + M, L will open everything up, but then you have the hideous "hash region definition" open and closing lines to read. They're just irritating. My most stead fast coding philosophy is that all programmer should strive to create clear, concise and cohesive code. Region tags just serve to create noise and redundant intentions. Region tags would be moot in a well thought out and intentioned class. The only place they seem to make sense to me, is in automatically generated code, because you should never have to read that outside of personal curiosity.

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inline function vs predefined functions

    - by glaz666
    Can any body throw me some arguments for using inline functions against passing predefined function name to some handler. I.e. which is better: (function(){ setTimeout(function(){ /*some code here*/ }, 5); })(); versus (function(){ function invokeMe() { /*code*/ } setTimeout(invokeMe, 5); })(); Strange question, but we are almost fighting in the team about this

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on try-catch blocks

    - by John Boker
    What are your thoughts on code that looks like this: public void doSomething() { try { // actual code goes here } catch (Exception ex) { throw; } } The problem I see is the actual error is not handled, just throwing the exception in a different place. I find it more difficult to debug because i don't get a line number where the actual problem is. So my question is why would this be good? ---- EDIT ---- From the answers it looks like most people are saying it's pointless to do this with no custom or specific exceptions being caught. That's what i wanted comments on, when no specific exception is being caught. I can see the point of actually doing something with a caught exception, just not the way this code is.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to set the minHeight of the scroll bar thumb in Flex 3

    - by Mad Oxyn
    In my project we needed to make the scollbars look like Windows scrollbars. Therefore I have a thumbIcon on the thumb of a vertical scrollbar, but if I get too many items in the combobox, the scrollbar gets fiddly. This is because the margin between the thumbIcon and the border of the thumbSkin is too small. Is there a way to set the minimum height of the thumbSkin so that I can ensure there is always a margin there and it always looks good, even if there are too many items? Image above, see the thumb? By the thumbIcon I mean the 3 horizontal lines. The top and bottom margin between this icon and the border of the thumb itself is too small. This is the normal scroll bar, the thumbIcon and the borders of the thumb have enough margin, which make the scroll bar look a lot better.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >