Search Results

Search found 28590 results on 1144 pages for 'best pactice'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 142/1144 | < Previous Page | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >

  • Best practices to keep up a diverging branch of code

    - by JS_is_bad
    I'm in a situation where some minor patches I've submitted to an open-source project were ignored or explicitly not accepted. I consider them useful, but more important is that I need the functionality they implement. I don't want to push my ideas and suggestions anymore to the main contributors, because I don't want to turn this into an ego issue. I've decided that my best bet would be just to use what I wrote for my own purposes. I don't want to fork the whole source code tree because I like how things are generally working, I'm just not happy with details. But I do realize that the project will evolve and I would like to use the new features that will eventually appear. I understand that I'll have to merge all new things into my own source tree. Are there any best practices for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • Generating new tasks in a foreach loop

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I know from the codeing guidlines that I have read you should not do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); as it will write 5 5's, I understand that and I think i understand why it is happening. I know the solution is just to do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { int localI = i; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(localI)); } Console.ReadLine(); However is something like this ok to do? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; currentTask.Start(); foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { task.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; } } or do i need to do this? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { Task localTask = task; currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { localTask.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; }

    Read the article

  • which type is best for three radiobuttons?

    - by Manog
    Maybe you consider this question trivial but im just curious what is your opinion. I have three radiobuttons. "Show blue", "Show red" and "Show all". I did it with nullable boolean. There is collumn in database where blue is 0 and red is 1 so in metode i have to translate bool to int to compare those values (i do it in c#).Of course it works, but i wonder if it is the best solution. And question is wich type is best in this case? nullable bool, int, or maybe string?

    Read the article

  • Call a non member function on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Call a non member funcion on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); ~C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • When using out parameters in a function, is it good practice to initialize them in the function?

    - by adambox
    I have a function that uses out parameters to return multiple values to the caller. I would like to initialize them in the function, but I wasn't sure if that's a bad idea since you don't know when you call the function that it's going to change the values right away. The caller might assume that after the function returns, if whatever it was doing didn't work, the values would be whatever they were initialized to in the caller. Is it ok / good for me to initialize in the function? Example: public static void SomeFunction(int ixID, out string sSomething) { sSomething = ""; sSomething = something(ixID); if (sSomething = "") { somethingelse(); sSomething = "bar" } }

    Read the article

  • can I put the break on the same line

    - by brett
    I have a switch statement that has over 300 case statements. case 'hello': { $say = 'some text'; } break; case 'hi': { $say = 'some text'; } break; Why is it that the break is always on a separate line? Is this required? Is there anything syntactically incorrect about me doing this: case 'hello': { $say = 'some text'; } break; case 'hi': { $say = 'some text'; } break;

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to initialize a variable to a dummy value?

    - by froadie
    This question is a result of the answers to this question that I just asked. It was claimed that this code is "ugly" because it initializes a variable to a value that will never be read: String tempName = null; try{ tempName = buildFileName(); } catch(Exception e){ ... System.exit(1); } FILE_NAME = tempName; Is this indeed bad practice? Should one avoid initializing variables to dummy values that will never actually be used? (EDIT - And what about initializing a String variable to "" before a loop that will concatenate values to the String...? Or is this in a separate category? e.g. String whatever = ""; for(String str : someCollection){ whatever += str; } )

    Read the article

  • Avoiding repetition with libraries that use a setup + execute model

    - by lijie
    Some libraries offer the ability to separate setup and execution, esp if the setup portion has undesirable characteristics such as unbounded latency. If the program needs to have this reflected in its structure, then it is natural to have: void setupXXX(...); // which calls the setup stuff void doXXX(...); // which calls the execute stuff The problem with this is that the structure of setupXXX and doXXX is going to be quite similar (at least textually -- control flow will prob be more complex in doXXX). Wondering if there are any ways to avoid this. Example: Let's say we're doing signal processing: filtering with a known kernel in the frequency domain. so, setupXXX and doXXX would probably be something like... void doFilter(FilterStuff *c) { for (int i = 0; i < c->N; ++i) { doFFT(c->x[i], c->fft_forward_setup, c->tmp); doMultiplyVector(c->tmp, c->filter); doFFT(c->tmp, c->fft_inverse_setup, c->x[i]); } } void setupFilter(FilterStuff *c) { setupFFT(..., &(c->fft_forward_setup)); // assign the kernel to c->filter ... setupFFT(..., &(c->fft_inverse_setup)); }

    Read the article

  • Should programmers use boolean variables to "document" their code?

    - by froadie
    I'm reading McConell's Code Complete, and he discusses using boolean variables to document your code. For example, instead of: if((elementIndex < 0) || (MAX_ELEMENTS < elementIndex) || (elementIndex == lastElementIndex)){ ... } He suggests: finished = ((elementIndex < 0) || (MAX_ELEMENTS < elementIndex)); repeatedEntry = (elementIndex == lastElementIndex); if(finished || repeatedEntry){ ... } This strikes me as logical, good practice, and very self-documenting. However, I'm hesitant to start using this technique regularly as I've almost never come across it; and perhaps it would be confusing just by virtue of being rare. However, my experience is not very vast yet, so I'm interested in hearing programmers' opinion of this technique, and I'd be curious to know if anyone uses this technique regularly or has seen it often when reading code. Is this a worthwhile convention/style/technique to adopt? Will other programmers understand and appreciate it, or consider it strange?

    Read the article

  • list all files from directories and subdirectories in Java

    - by Adnan
    What would be the fastest way to list the names of files from 1000+ directories and sub-directories? EDIT; The current code I use is: import java.io.File; public class DirectoryReader { static int spc_count=-1; static void Process(File aFile) { spc_count++; String spcs = ""; for (int i = 0; i < spc_count; i++) spcs += " "; if(aFile.isFile()) System.out.println(spcs + "[FILE] " + aFile.getName()); else if (aFile.isDirectory()) { System.out.println(spcs + "[DIR] " + aFile.getName()); File[] listOfFiles = aFile.listFiles(); if(listOfFiles!=null) { for (int i = 0; i < listOfFiles.length; i++) Process(listOfFiles[i]); } else { System.out.println(spcs + " [ACCESS DENIED]"); } } spc_count--; } public static void main(String[] args) { String nam = "D:/"; File aFile = new File(nam); Process(aFile); } }

    Read the article

  • How should nested components interact with model in a GUI application?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Broad design/architecture question. If you have nested components in a GUI, what's the most common way for those components to interact with data? For example, let's say a component receives a click on one of its buttons to save data. Should the save request be delegated up that component's ancestors, with the uppermost ancestor ultimately passing the request to a controller? Or are models/datastores in a GUI application typically singletons, so that a component at any level of a hierarchy can directly get/set data? Or is a controller injected as a dependency down the hierarchy of components, so that any given component is only one intermediary away from the datastore/model?

    Read the article

  • How should I use try...except while defining a function?

    - by SpawnCxy
    Hi all, I find I've been confused by the problem that when I needn't to use try..except.For last few days it was used in almost every function I defined which I think maybe a bad practice.For example: class mongodb(object): def getRecords(self,tname,conditions=''): try: col = eval("self.db.%s" %tname) recs = col.find(condition) return recs except Exception,e: #here make some error log with e.message What I thought is ,exceptions may be raised everywhere and I have to use try to get them. And my question is,is it a good practice to use it everywhere when defining functions?If not are there any principles for it?Help would be appreciated! Regards

    Read the article

  • How to handle request/response propagation up and down a widget hierarchy in a GUI app?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Given a GUI application where widgets can be composed of other widgets: If the user triggers an event resulting in a lower level widget needing data from a model, what's the cleanest way to be able to send that request to a controller (or the datastore itself)? And subsequently get the response back to that widget? Presumably one wouldn't want the controller or datastore to be a singleton directly available to all levels of widgets, or is this an acceptable use of singleton? Or should a top level controller be injected as a dependency through a widget hierarchy, as far down as the lowest level widget that might need that controller? Or a different approach entirely?

    Read the article

  • detect a string contained by another discontinuously

    - by SpawnCxy
    Recently I'm working on bad content(such as advertise post) filter of a BBS.And I write a function to detect a string is in another string not continuously.Code as below: $str = 'helloguys'; $substr1 = 'hlu'; $substr2 = 'elf'; function detect($a,$b) //function that detect a in b { $c = ''; for($i=0;$i<=strlen($a);$i++) { for($j=0;$j<=strlen($b);$j++) { if($a[$i] == $b[$j]) { $b=substr($b,$j+1); $c .=$a[$i]; break; } } } if($c == $a) return true; else return false; } var_dump(detect($substr1,$str)); //true var_dump(detect($substr2,$str)); //false Since the filter works before the users do their posts so I think the efficiency here is important.And I wonder if there's any better solution? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When using Sessions is bad thing, and whats wrong with it?

    - by Amr ElGarhy
    I know that in community server which means that you can't use Sessions, and few years ago i remember i was working on a website where we were not allowed to use sessions. In my point of view sessions are a very helpful tool if we managed how to use the right way, but is using session variable in a website is something bad, when its bad and when its not?

    Read the article

  • Correct approach to validate attributes of an instance of class

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters declaration ? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >