Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

Page 146/405 | < Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >

  • Why use short-circuit code?

    - by Tim Lytle
    Related Questions: Benefits of using short-circuit evaluation, Why would a language NOT use Short-circuit evaluation?, Can someone explain this line of code please? (Logic & Assignment operators) There are questions about the benefits of a language using short-circuit code, but I'm wondering what are the benefits for a programmer? Is it just that it can make code a little more concise? Or are there performance reasons? I'm not asking about situations where two entities need to be evaluated anyway, for example: if($user->auth() AND $model->valid()){ $model->save(); } To me the reasoning there is clear - since both need to be true, you can skip the more costly model validation if the user can't save the data. This also has a (to me) obvious purpose: if(is_string($userid) AND strlen($userid) > 10){ //do something }; Because it wouldn't be wise to call strlen() with a non-string value. What I'm wondering about is the use of short-circuit code when it doesn't effect any other statements. For example, from the Zend Application default index page: defined('APPLICATION_PATH') || define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application')); This could have been: if(!defined('APPLICATION_PATH')){ define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application')); } Or even as a single statement: if(!defined('APPLICATION_PATH')) define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application')); So why use the short-circuit code? Just for the 'coolness' factor of using logic operators in place of control structures? To consolidate nested if statements? Because it's faster?

    Read the article

  • Using Objective-C Blocks

    - by Sean
    Today I was experimenting with Objective-C's blocks so I thought I'd be clever and add to NSArray a few functional-style collection methods that I've seen in other languages: @interface NSArray (FunWithBlocks) - (NSArray *)collect:(id (^)(id obj))block; - (NSArray *)select:(BOOL (^)(id obj))block; - (NSArray *)flattenedArray; @end The collect: method takes a block which is called for each item in the array and expected to return the results of some operation using that item. The result is the collection of all of those results. (If the block returns nil, nothing is added to the result set.) The select: method will return a new array with only the items from the original that, when passed as an argument to the block, the block returned YES. And finally, the flattenedArray method iterates over the array's items. If an item is an array, it recursively calls flattenedArray on it and adds the results to the result set. If the item isn't an array, it adds the item to the result set. The result set is returned when everything is finished. So now that I had some infrastructure, I needed a test case. I decided to find all package files in the system's application directories. This is what I came up with: NSArray *packagePaths = [[[NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSAllApplicationsDirectory, NSAllDomainsMask, YES) collect:^(id path) { return (id)[[[NSFileManager defaultManager] contentsOfDirectoryAtPath:path error:nil] collect:^(id file) { return (id)[path stringByAppendingPathComponent:file]; }]; }] flattenedArray] select:^(id fullPath) { return [[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] isFilePackageAtPath:fullPath]; }]; Yep - that's all one line and it's horrid. I tried a few approaches at adding newlines and indentation to try to clean it up, but it still feels like the actual algorithm is lost in all the noise. I don't know if it's just a syntax thing or my relative in-experience with using a functional style that's the problem, though. For comparison, I decided to do it "the old fashioned way" and just use loops: NSMutableArray *packagePaths = [NSMutableArray new]; for (NSString *searchPath in NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSAllApplicationsDirectory, NSAllDomainsMask, YES)) { for (NSString *file in [[NSFileManager defaultManager] contentsOfDirectoryAtPath:searchPath error:nil]) { NSString *packagePath = [searchPath stringByAppendingPathComponent:file]; if ([[NSWorkspace sharedWorkspace] isFilePackageAtPath:packagePath]) { [packagePaths addObject:packagePath]; } } } IMO this version was easier to write and is more readable to boot. I suppose it's possible this was somehow a bad example, but it seems like a legitimate way to use blocks to me. (Am I wrong?) Am I missing something about how to write or structure Objective-C code with blocks that would clean this up and make it clearer than (or even just as clear as) the looped version?

    Read the article

  • How to use Python list comprehension (or such) for retrieving rows when using MySQLdb?

    - by Erik Nygren
    Hey all, I use MySQLdb a lot when dealing with my webserver. I often find myself repeating the lines: row = cursor.fetchone() while row: do_processing(row) row = cursor.fetchone() Somehow this strikes me as somewhat un-pythonic. Is there a better, one-line way to accomplish the same thing, along the lines of inline assignment in C: while (row = do_fetch()) { do_processing(row); } I've tried figuring out the syntax using list comprehensions, but I can't seem to figure it out. Any recommendations? Thanks, Erik

    Read the article

  • What is the C# static fields naming convention?

    - by Matt
    I have recently started using ReSharper which is a fantastic tool. Today I came across a naming rule for static fields, namely prefixing with an underscore ie. private static string _myString; Is this really the standard way to name static variables? If so is it just personal preference and style, or does it have some sort of lower level impact? Eg Compilation JIT etc? Where does this style originate from? I have always associated it with C++, is that correct?

    Read the article

  • indentation preference and personality

    - by dreftymac
    This question is similar in spirit to : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/492178/links-between-personality-types-and-language-technology-preferences But it is based specifically on indentation (spaces vs tabs and the number of spaces). The reason I am asking here instead of searching is because I remember seeing a specific document writing about this. If I remember correctly, it also talked about why Linus prefers eight spaces.

    Read the article

  • Is this good C# style?

    - by burnt1ce
    Consider the following method signature: public static bool TryGetPolls(out List<Poll> polls, out string errorMessage) This method performs the following: accesses the database to generate a list of Poll objects. returns true if it was success and errorMessage will be an empty string returns false if it was not successful and errorMessage will contain an exception message. Is this good style? Update: Lets say i do use the following method signature: public static List<Poll> GetPolls() and in that method, it doesn't catch any exceptions (so i depend the caller to catch exceptions). How do i dispose and close all the objects that is in the scope of that method? As soon as an exception is thrown, the code that closes and disposes objects in the method is no longer reachable.

    Read the article

  • Style: Dot notation vs. message notation in Objective-C 2.0

    - by groundhog
    In Objective-C 2.0 we got the "dot" notation for properties. I've seen various back and forths about the merits of dot notation vs. message notation. To keep the responses untainted I'm not going to respond either way in the question. What is your thought about dot notation vs. message notation for property accessing? Please try to keep it focused on Objective-C - my one bias I'll put forth is that Objective-C is Objective-C, so your preference that it be like Java or JavaScript aren't valid. Valid commentary is to do with technical issues (operation ordering, cast precedence, performance, etc), clarity (structure vs. object nature, both pro and con!), succinctness, etc. Note, I'm of the school of rigorous quality and readability in code having worked on huge projects where code convention and quality is paramount (the write once read a thousand times paradigm).

    Read the article

  • Code Golf: Numeric Equivalent of an Excel Column-Name

    - by Vivin Paliath
    Can you figure out the numeric equivalent of an Excel column string in the shortest-possible way, using your favorite language? For example, the A column is 1, B is 2, so on and so forth. Once you hit Z, the next column becomes AA, then AB and so on. Rules: Here is some sample input and output: A: 1 B: 2 AD: 30 ABC: 731 WTF: 16074 ROFL: 326676 I don't know if the submitter is allowed to post a solution, but I have a Perl solution that clocks in at 125 characters :).

    Read the article

  • Should all public methods of an API be documented?

    - by cynicalman
    When writing "library" type classes, is it better practice to always write markup documentation (i.e. javadoc) in java or assume that the code can be "self-documenting"? For example, given the following method stub: /** * Copies all readable bytes from the provided input stream to the provided output * stream. The output stream will be flushed, but neither stream will be closed. * * @param inStream an InputStream from which to read bytes. * @param outStream an OutputStream to which to copy the read bytes. * @throws IOException if there are any errors reading or writing. */ public void copyStream(InputStream inStream, OutputStream outStream) throws IOException { // copy the stream } The javadoc seems to be self-evident, and noise that just needs to be updated if the funcion is changed at all. But the sentence about flushing and not closing the stream could be valuable. So, when writing a library, is it best to: a) always document b) document anything that isn't obvious c) never document (code should speak for itself!) I usually use b), myself (since the code can be self-documenting otherwise)...

    Read the article

  • Quick question - how to comment if-else structure?

    - by serg555
    Lets say you have: if(condition) { i = 1; } else { i = 2; } and you need to put comments explaining if and else blocks. What's the most readable way of doing it so someone can easily pick them up at first glance? I usually do it like this: //check for condition if(condition) { i = 1; } else { //condition isn't met i = 2; } which I find not good enough as comments are located at different levels, so at quick glance you would just pick up if comment and else comment would look like it belongs to some inner structure. Putting them like this: if(condition) { //check for condition i = 1; } else { //condition isn't met i = 2; } doesn't look good to me either as it would seem like the whole structure is not commented (condition might be big and take multiple lines). Something like that: //check for condition if(condition) { i = 1; //condition isn't met } else { i = 2; } would be probably the best style from comments point of view but confusing as a code structure. How do you comment such blocks?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Python require exactly four spaces per indentation level?

    - by knorv
    Whitespace is signification in Python in that code blocks are defined by their indentation. Furthermore, Guido van Rossum recommends using four spaces per indentation level (see PEP 8: Style Guide for Python Code). What was the reasoning behind not requiring exactly four spaces per indentation level as well? Are there any technical reasons? It seems like all the arguments that can be made for making whitespace define code blocks can also be used to argument for setting an exact whitespace length for one indentation level (say four spaces).

    Read the article

  • Where should JavaScript be put?

    - by NessDan
    I've been doing a little JavaScript (well, more like jQuery) for a while now and one thing I've always been confused about is where I should put my scripts, in the <head> tag or in the <body> tag. If anyone could clarify this issue, that'd be great. An example of what should go where would be perfect.

    Read the article

  • Question about functional OOP style in JavaScript

    - by valums
    I prefer to use functional OOP style for my code (similar to the module pattern) because it helps me to avoid the "new" keyword and all problems with the scope of "this" keyword in callbacks. But I've run into a few minor issues with it. I would like to use the following code to create a class. namespace.myClass = function(){ var self = {}, somePrivateVar1; // initialization code that would call // private or public methods privateMethod(); self.publicMethod(); // sorry, error here function privateMethod(){} self.publicMethod = function(){}; return self; } The problem is that I can't call public methods from my initialization code, as these functions are not defined yet. The obvious solution would be to create an init method, and call it before "return self" line. But maybe you know a more elegant solution? Also, how do you usually handle inheritance with this pattern? I use the following code, butI would like to hear your ideas and suggestions. namespace.myClass2 = function(){ var self = namespace.parentClass(), somePrivateVar1; var superMethod = self.someMethod; self.someMethod = function(){ // example shows how to overwrite parent methods superMethod(); }; return self; } Edit. For those who asked what are the reasons for choosing this style of OOP, you can look into following questions: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1557386/prototypal-vs-functional-oop-in-javascript http://stackoverflow.com/questions/383402/is-javascript-s-new-keyword-considered-harmful

    Read the article

  • How to write a linter?

    - by jbdavid
    In my day job I, and others on my team write a lot of hardware models in Verilog-AMS, a language supported primarily by commercial vendors and a few opensource simulator projects. One thing that would make supporting each others code more helpful would be a LINTER that would check our code for common problems and assist with enforcing a shared code formatting style. I of course want to be able to add my own rules and, after I prove their utility to myself, promote them to the rest of the team.. I don't mind doing the work that has to be done, but of course also want to leverage the work of other existing projects. Does having the allowed language syntax in a yacc or bison format give me a leg up? or should I just suck each language statement into a perl string, and use pattern matching to find the things I don't like? (most syntax and compilation errors are easily caught by the commercial tools.. but we have some of our own extentions.)

    Read the article

  • if (condition) continue; OR if (!condition) { ... }? (style preference)

    - by Hosam Aly
    I know this is a matter of style, hence the subjective tag. I have a small piece of code, with two nested conditions. I could code it in two ways, and I'd like to see how more experienced developers think it should look like. Style 1: while (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(msg = reader.readMsg())) { RaiseMessageReceived(); if (parseMsg) { ParsedMsg parsedMsg = parser.parseMsg(msg); RaiseMessageParsed(); if (processMsg) { process(parsedMsg); RaiseMessageProcessed(); } } } Style 2: while (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(msg = reader.readMsg())) { RaiseMessageReceived(); if (!parseMsg) continue; ParsedMsg parsedMsg = parser.parseMsg(msg); RaiseMessageParsed(); if (!processMsg) continue; process(parsedMsg); RaiseMessageProcessed(); } (Side question: how do I put empty lines in the source code sample?)

    Read the article

  • Stand-alone Java code formatter/beautifier/pretty printer?

    - by Greg Mattes
    I'm interested in learning about the available choices of high-quality, stand-alone source code formatters for Java. The formatter must be stand-alone, that is, it must support a "batch" mode that is decoupled from any particular development environment. Ideally it should be independent of any particular operating system as well. So, a built-in formatter for the IDE du jour is of little interest here (unless that IDE supports batch mode formatter invocation, perhaps from the command line). A formatter written in closed-source C/C++ that only runs on, say, Windows is not ideal, but is somewhat interesting. To be clear, a "formatter" (or "beautifier") is not the same as a "style checker." A formatter accepts source code as input, applies styling rules, and produces styled source code that is semantically equivalent to the original source code. A style checker also applies styling rules, but it simply reports rule violations without producing modified source code as output. So the picture looks like this: Formatter (produces modified source code that conforms to styling rules) Read Source Code → Apply Styling Rules → Write Styled Source Code Style Checker (does not produce modified source code) Read Source Code → Apply Styling Rules → Write Rule Violations Further Clarifications Solutions must be highly configurable. I want to be able to specify my own style, not simply select from a canned list. Also, I'm not looking for a general purpose pretty-printer written in Java that can pretty-print many things. I want to style Java code. I'm also not necessarily interested in a grand-unified formatter for many languages. I suppose it might be nice for a solution to have support for languages other than Java, but that is not a requirement. Furthermore, tools that only perform code highlighting are right out. I'm also not interested in a web service. I want a tool that I can run locally. Finally, solutions need not be restricted to open source, public domain, shareware, free software, commercial, or anything else. All forms of licensing are acceptable.

    Read the article

  • Pattern matching in Perl ala Haskell

    - by Paul Nathan
    In Haskell (F#, Ocaml, and others), I can do this: sign x | x > 0 = 1 | x == 0 = 0 | x < 0 = -1 Which calculates the sign of a given integer. This can concisely express certain logic flows; I've encountered one of these flows in Perl. Right now what I am doing is sub frobnicator { my $frob = shift; return "foo" if $frob eq "Foomaticator"; return "bar" if $frob eq "Barmaticator"; croak("Unable to frob legit value: $frob received"); } Which feels inexpressive and ugly. This code has to run on Perl 5.8.8, but of course I am interested in more modern techniques as well.

    Read the article

  • Visual Assist X: curly braces are moving during refactoring

    - by overrider
    I use Visual Assist X, build from 05.01.2009, but the same problem occurred in the previous releases as well. (I run it on MSVS 2005) When I do some refactoring (like extracting a method), everything's fine, but all the curly braces move forward. For example, before refactoring the code looked like this: while (expr) { doSmth(); } After refactoring: while (expr) { doSmth(); } So, I need to move manually all the brackets. Sure, the problem is minor, but it becomes annoying when you do a lot of refactoring. Is it a bug or just default settings? So, does anyone know a workaround?

    Read the article

  • Links to official style guides

    - by User1
    C++ has several types of styles: MFC, Boost, Google, etc. I would like to examine these styles and determine which one is best for my projects, but I want to read from the official style guidebook. Does anyone have an official guide that they typically use? Here are two that I found. I bet there are more: http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html Note: This is NOT a discussion about which styleis best..only a call for official style guides that people currently use. Please refrain from bashing other style guides that you don't like. Side question: Is there a good tool that can examine source code and tell if it matches a given style guide?

    Read the article

  • C# - Automatically Format Document

    - by Jeremy Rudd
    Anyway of invoking the Edit Advanced Format Document" VS command automatically when switching away from a document / routinely with a timer / on entering a document? Its really irritating Ctrl+E+D'ing everytime you want to prettify your code.

    Read the article

  • Does resharper make you lazy?

    - by ForeverDebugging
    I've been looking at using resharper and from the reviews I've seen, people who start using it never go back. I'm wondering if using resharper helps you pick up errors when looking at code without resharper, or does it decrease this ability becaues you get use to relying on resharper to identify problems?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >