Search Results

Search found 49616 results on 1985 pages for 'coding system'.

Page 126/1985 | < Previous Page | 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133  | Next Page >

  • Catching specific vs. generic exceptions in c#

    - by Scott Vercuski
    This question comes from a code analysis run against an object I've created. The analysis says that I should catch a more specific exception type than just the basic Exception. Do you find yourself using just catching the generic Exception or attempting to catch a specific Exception and defaulting to a generic Exception using multiple catch blocks? One of the code chunks in question is below: internal static bool ClearFlags(string connectionString, Guid ID) { bool returnValue = false; SqlConnection dbEngine = new SqlConnection(connectionString); SqlCommand dbCmd = new SqlCommand("ClearFlags", dbEngine); SqlDataAdapter dataAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(dbCmd); dbCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; try { dbCmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@ID", ID.ToString()); dbEngine.Open(); dbCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); dbEngine.Close(); returnValue = true; } catch (Exception ex) { ErrorHandler(ex); } return returnValue; } Thank you for your advice EDIT: Here is the warning from the code analysis Warning 351 CA1031 : Microsoft.Design : Modify 'ClearFlags(string, Guid)' to catch a more specific exception than 'Exception' or rethrow the exception

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard literal constant that I can use instead of "utf-8" in C# (.Net 3.5)?

    - by Hamish Grubijan
    Hi, I would like to find a better way to do this: XmlNode nodeXML = xmlDoc.AppendChild( xmlDoc.CreateXmlDeclaration( "1.0", "utf-8", String.Empty) ); I do not want to think about "utf-8" vs "UTF-8" vs "UTF8" vs "utf8" as I type code. I would like to make my code less prone to typos. I am sure that some standard library has declatred "utf-8" as a const / readonly string. How can I find it? Also, what about "1.0"? I am assuming that major XML versions have been enumerated somewhere as well. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • jQuery programming style?

    - by Sam Dufel
    I was recently asked to fix something on a site which I haven't worked on before. I haven't really worked with jQuery that much, but I figured I'd take a look and see if I could fix it. I've managed to mostly clear up the problem, but I'm still horrified at the way they chose to build this site. On document load, they replace the click() method of every anchor tag and form element with the same massive function. When clicked, that function then checks if the tag has one of a few different attributes (non-standard attributes, even), and does a variety of different tasks depending on what attributes exist and what their values are. Some hyperlinks have an attribute on them called 'ajaxrel', which makes the click() function look for another (hidden) hyperlink with an ID specified by the ajaxrel attribute, and then calls the click() function for that other hyperlink (which was also modified by this same click() function). On the server side, all the php files are quite long and have absolutely no indentation. This whole site has been a nightmare to debug. Is this standard jQuery practice? This navigation scheme seems terrible. Does anyone else actually use jQuery this way? I'd like to start incorporating it into my projects, but looking at this site is giving me a serious headache. Here's the click() function for hyperlinks: function ajaxBoxA(theElement, urltosend, ajaxbox, dialogbox) { if ($(theElement).attr("href") != undefined) var urltosend = $(theElement).attr("href"); if ($(theElement).attr('toajaxbox') != undefined) var ajaxbox = $(theElement).attr('toajaxbox'); // check to see if dialog box is called for. if ($(theElement).attr('dialogbox') != undefined) var dialogbox = $(theElement).attr('dialogbox'); var dodialog = 0; if (dialogbox != undefined) { // if dialogbox doesn't exist, then flag to create dialog box. var isDiaOpen = $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').parent().parent().is(".ui-dialog-container"); dodialog = 1; if (isDiaOpen) { dodialog = 0; } dialogbox = parseUri(dialogbox); dialogoptions = { close: function () { // $("[id^=hierarchy]",this).NestedSortableDestroy(); $(this).dialog('destroy').remove() } }; for ( var keyVar in dialogbox['queryKey'] ) eval( "dialogoptions." + keyVar + " = dialogbox['queryKey'][keyVar]"); }; $("body").append("<div id='TB_load'><img src='"+imgLoader.src+"' /></div>"); $('#TB_load').show(); if (urltosend.search(/\?/) > 0) { urltosend = urltosend + "&-ajax=1"; } else { urltosend = urltosend + "?-ajax=1"; } if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).empty(); }); }; $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: urltosend, data: "", async: false, dataType: "html", success: function (html) { var re = /^<toajaxbox>(.*?)<\/toajaxbox>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); ajaxbox = match[1]; html = Right(html, String(html).length - String(match[1]).length); } var re = /^<header>(.*?)<\/header>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); window.location = match[1]; return false; } if (html.length > 0) { var newHtml = $(html); if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).replaceWith(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml) if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); }); if ($('[ajaxdialog="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length = 0) { if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } else { $("body").append(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml); if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } var rel = $(theElement).attr('ajaxtriggerrel'); if (rel != undefined) $('a[ajaxrel="' + rel + '"]').click(); tb_remove(); return false; }, complete: function () { $("#TB_load").remove(); } }); return false; }

    Read the article

  • Does malloc() allocate a contiguous block of memory?

    - by user66854
    I have a piece of code written by a very old school programmer :-) . it goes something like this typedef struct ts_request { ts_request_buffer_header_def header; char package[1]; } ts_request_def; ts_request_buffer_def* request_buffer = malloc(sizeof(ts_request_def) + (2 * 1024 * 1024)); the programmer basically is working on a buffer overflow concept. I know the code looks dodgy. so my questions are: Does malloc always allocate contiguous block of memory ?. because in this code if the blocks are not contiguous , the code will fail big time Doing free(request_buffer) , will it free all the bytes allocated by malloc i.e sizeof(ts_request_def) + (2 * 1024 * 1024), or only the bytes of the size of the structure sizeof(ts_request_def) Do you see any evident problems with this approach , i need to discuss this with my boss and would like to point out any loopholes with this approach

    Read the article

  • Elegant check for null and exit in C#

    - by aip.cd.aish
    What is an elegant way of writing this? if (lastSelection != null) { lastSelection.changeColor(); } else { MessageBox.Show("No Selection Made"); return; } changeColor() is a void function and the function that is running the above code is a void function as well.

    Read the article

  • Why is there so much poorly indented code out there?

    - by dsimcha
    The more I browse the code to open source projects in languages that aren't Python, the more I realize that it seems a lot of programmers don't believe in proper indentation. (I won't mention any projects specifically to avoid having anyone take this question too personally.) Usually code is indented, but in a way just different enough from the standard style that it drives me crazy, especially in old/crufty code. I've noticed that when I write in C-like languages, I tend to indent correctly as religiously as when I'm writing in Python, with the exception of debugging code that I actually want to stick out like a sore thumb. Given how easy it is with a modern IDE to fix incorrect indentation, what are some rationales for not religiously keeping indentation in sync with braces?

    Read the article

  • Style of if: to nest or not to nest

    - by Marco
    A colleague of mine and me had a discussion about the following best-practice issue. Most functions/methods start with some parameter checking. I advocate the following style, which avoids nesting. if (parameter one is ugly) return ERROR; if (parameter two is nonsense || it is raining) return ERROR; // do the useful stuff return result; He, who comes from a more functional/logic programming background, prefers the following, because it reduces the number of exit points from the function. if (parameter one is ok) { if (parameter two is ok && the sun is shining) { // do the useful stuff return result } } return ERROR; Which one would you prefer and why?

    Read the article

  • How to name variables wich are structs

    - by evilpie
    Hello, i often work on private projects using the WinApi, and as you might know, it has thousands of named and typedefed structs like MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION. I will stick to this one in my question, what still is preferred, or better when you want to name a variable of this type. Is there some kind of style guide for this case? For example if i need that variable for the VirtualQueryEx function. Some ideas: MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memoryBasicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memory_basic_information; Just use the name of the struct non captialized and with or without the underlines. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION basicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION information; Short form? MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION mbi; I often see this style, using the abbreviation of the struct name. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION buffer; VirtualQueryEx defines the third parameter lpBuffer (where you pass the pointer to the struct), so using this name might be an idea, too. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Microsoft C++ Language Reference

    - by eSKay
    Whenever any question is asked, and a reference text is needed, I never see MSDN C++ Language Reference being referred. I was browsing through it and I personally feel that it is extremely well written. Is there some specific reason it is not used as often as a standard? Is it because it contains some VC++ specific features?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

    Read the article

  • Formatting associative array declaration

    - by Drew Stephens
    When declaring an associative array, how do you handle the indentation of the elements of the array? I've seen a number of different styles (PHP syntax, since that's what I've been in lately). This is a pretty picky and trivial thing, so move along if you're interested in more serious pursuits. 1) Indent elements one more level: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 2) Indent elements two levels: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 3) Indent elements beyond the array constructor, with closing brace aligned with the start of the constructor: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 4) Indent elements beyond the array construct, with closing brace aligned with opening brace: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); Personally, I like #3—the broad indentation makes it clear that we're at a break point in the code (constructing the array), and having the closing brace floating a bit to the left of all of the array's data makes it clear that this declaration is done.

    Read the article

  • Can I assign a object to a integer variable?

    - by AKN
    Let say I have a object. I'm assigning that to an integer. MyClass obj1 = 100;//Not valid Let's say, I have a parameterized constructor which accepts an integer. MyClass(int Num) { // .. do whatever.. } MyClass obj1 = 100;//Now, its valid Likewise on any circumstance, does the vice-versa becomes valid?!. eg) int Number = obj1;//Is it VALID or can be made valid by some tweeks

    Read the article

  • Pro/con: Initializing a variable in a conditional statement

    - by steffenj
    In C++ you can initialize a variable in an if statement, like so: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing()) { } Why would one consider this bad or good style? What are the benefits and disadvantages? Personally i like this style because it limits the scope of the pThing variable, so it can never be used accidentally when it is NULL. However, i don't like that you can't do this: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing() && pThing->IsReallySomeThing()) { } If there's a way to make the above work, please post. But if that's just not possible, i'd still like to know why. Question borrowed from here, similar topic but PHP.

    Read the article

  • Gracefully avoiding NullPointerException in Java

    - by Yuval A
    Consider this line: if (object.getAttribute("someAttr").equals("true")) { // .... Obviously this line is a potential bug, the attribute might be null and we will get a NullPointerException. So we need to refactor it to one of two choices: First option: if ("true".equals(object.getAttribute("someAttr"))) { // .... Second option: String attr = object.getAttribute("someAttr"); if (attr != null) { if (attr.equals("true")) { // .... The first option is awkward to read but more concise, while the second one is clear in intent, but verbose. Which option do you prefer in terms of readability?

    Read the article

  • Should Python import statements always be at the top of a module?

    - by Adam J. Forster
    PEP 08 states: Imports are always put at the top of the file, just after any module comments and docstrings, and before module globals and constants. However if the class/method/function that I am importing is only used in rare cases, surely it is more efficient to do the import when it is needed? Isn't this: class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) from datetime import datetime self.datetime = datetime.now() more efficient than this? from datetime import datetime class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) self.datetime = datetime.now()

    Read the article

  • C++ class initialisation containing class variable initialization

    - by Phil Hannent
    I noticed some code of a colleague today that initialized class variables in the initialization. However it was causing a warning, he says because of the order they are in. My question is why is it better to do variable initialization where it currently is and not within the curly brackets? DiagramScene::DiagramScene( int slideNo, QRectF screenRect, MainWindow* parent ) : QGraphicsScene( screenRect, parent ), myParent( parent ), slideUndoImageCurrentIndex(-1), nextGroupID(0), m_undoInProgress(false), m_deleteItemOnNextUndo(0) line(0), path(0) { /* Setup default brush for background */ scDetail->bgBrush.setStyle(Qt::SolidPattern); scDetail->bgBrush.setColor(Qt::white); setBackgroundBrush(scDetail->bgBrush); }

    Read the article

  • Static vs Non Static constructors

    - by Neil N
    I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

    Read the article

  • C++ cast syntax styles

    - by palm3D
    A question related to Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast: What cast syntax style do you prefer in C++? C-style cast syntax: (int)foo C++-style cast syntax: static_cast<int>(foo) constructor syntax: int(foo) They may not translate to exactly the same instructions (do they?) but their effect should be the same (right?). If you're just casting between the built-in numeric types, I find C++-style cast syntax too verbose. As a former Java coder I tend to use C-style cast syntax instead, but my local C++ guru insists on using constructor syntax. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Surprise for a programmer [closed]

    - by penelope
    help! my boyfriend's birthday is next month. since he is a programmer, I'd love to make him a cake with the code for "happy birthday" (and perhaps something awesome) written in icing on top. not being a programmer myself, i have no idea where to begin. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Most readable way to write simple conditional check

    - by JRL
    What would be the most readable/best way to write a multiple conditional check such as shown below? Two possibilities that I could think of (this is Java but the language really doesn't matter here): Option 1: boolean c1 = passwordField.getPassword().length > 0; boolean c2 = !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); boolean c3 = !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); if (c1 && c2 && c3) { okButton.setEnabled(true); } Option 2: if (passwordField.getPassword().length > 0 && !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() && !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() { okButton.setEnabled(true); } What I don't like about option 2 is that the line wraps and then indentation becomes a pain. What I don't like about option 1 is that it creates variables for nothing and requires looking at two places. So what do you think? Any other options?

    Read the article

  • Better Java method Syntax? Return early or late? [closed]

    - by Gandalf
    Duplicate: Should a function have only one return statement? and Single return or multiple return statements? Often times you might have a method that checks numerous conditions and returns a status (lets say boolean for now). Is it better to define a flag, set it during the method, and return it at the end : boolean validate(DomainObject o) { boolean valid = false; if (o.property == x) { valid = true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { valid = true; } ... return valid; } or is it better/more correct to simply return once you know the method's outcome? boolean validate(DomainObject o) { if (o.property == x) { return true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { return true; } ... return false; } Now obviously there could be try/catch blocks and all other kinds of conditions, but I think the concept is clear. Opinions?

    Read the article

  • Style question: Writing "this." before instance variable and methods: good or bad idea?

    - by Uri
    One of my nasty (?) programming habits in C++ and Java is to always precede calls or accesses to members with a this. For example: this.process(this.event). A few of my students commented on this, and I'm wondering if I am teaching bad habits. My rationale is: 1) Makes code more readable — Easier to distinguish fields from local variables. 2) Makes it easier to distinguish standard calls from static calls (especially in Java) 3) Makes me remember that this call (unless the target is final) could end up on a different target, for example in an overriding version in a subclass. Obviously, this has zero impact on the compiled program, it's just readability. So am I making it more or less readable? Related Question Note: I turned it into a CW since there really isn't a correct answer.

    Read the article

  • How to get all n sets of three consecutives elements in an array or arraylist with a for statement ?

    - by newba
    Hi, I'm trying to do a convex hull approach and the little problem is that I need to get all sets of three consecutive vertices, like this: private void isConvexHull(Ponto[] points) { Arrays.sort(points); for (int i = 0; i <points.length; i++) { isClockWise(points[i],points[i+1],points[i+2]); } //... } I always do something that I don't consider clean code. Could please help me find one or more ways to this? I want it to be circular, i.e., if my fisrt point of the a set is the last element in the array, the 2nd element will be the 3rd in the list and the 3rd in that set will be the the 2nd element in the list, and so on. They must be consecutive, that's all.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133  | Next Page >