Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

Page 183/348 | < Previous Page | 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Is it a bad programming practise to have "Public" members inside an "Internal" class?

    - by Amby
    I mean, won;t it be more specific and appropriate if i "only" keep "protected","internal" and "private" members (field,method,property,event) in a class which is declared as "internal" ? I have seen this practice ( having "public" members in an "internal" class) in various code so just wanted to know is it a bad practice or does it has some benefit or advantage. [Only concerned about C#] Thanks for your interest.

    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

  • UI Design - design pattern for city/country drop down? (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by JK
    What is the best way to do a city/country dropdown pair in ASP.NET MVC? I see lots of places with country above city, but that's unnatural: in real life we write city/country. I've used city, then country, but the problem is that the user then has to go backwards after changing the country. The other problem is what do you do about cities/countries not in your list? If city/country are both drop downs, then the user cant type their own city if it is missing. But if you have a dropdown and a textbox, that makes it unwieldy (you end up with 4 controls to enter 2 pieces of data). Are there any examples websites where the city/country dropdown pair are done in a very useable and clear manner?

    Read the article

  • Makefile: expand dependencies

    - by Danyel
    First off, the title is very generic because there are just tons of ways of how to possibly solve this. However, I'm looking for a clean and neat way. Situation: I have two equal object files foo.o and foo-pi.o, the latter of which is position-independent (compiled with -fPIC). Both depend on foo.h and bar.h. Problem: How do I, without code duplication, declare dependency of all foo*.o to bar.h? Solutions so far: $(shell bash -c 'echo -ne foo{-pi,}.o'}: bar.h $(addsuffix .o, $(addprefix fo, o-pi o)): bar.h The first solution is not portable on systems that don't support bash, the second is a dirty solution since I could not figure out how to use empty strings in addprefix.

    Read the article

  • Should I use a class in this: Reading a XML file using lxml.

    - by PulpFiction
    Hi everyone. This question is in continuation to my previous question, in which I asked about passing around an ElementTree. I need to read the XML files only and to solve this, I decided to create a global ElementTree and then parse it wherever required. My question is: Is this an acceptable practice? I heard global variables are bad. If I don't make it global, I was suggested to make a class. But do I really need to create a class? What benefits would I have from that approach. Note that I would be handling only one ElementTree instance per run, the operations are read-only. If I don't use a class, how and where do I declare that ElementTree so that it available globally? (Note that I would be importing this module) Please answer this question in the respect that I am a beginner to development, and at this stage I can't figure out whether to use a class or just go with the functional style programming approach.

    Read the article

  • Using try vs if in python

    - by artdanil
    Is there a rationale to decide which one of try or if constructs to use, when testing variable to have a value? For example, there is a function that returns either a list or doesn't return a value. I want to check result before processing it. Which of the following would be more preferable and why? result = function(); if (result): for r in result: #process items or result = function(); try: for r in result: #process items except TypeError: pass; Related discussion: Checking for member existence in Python

    Read the article

  • Singleton Pattern Implementation Issues?

    - by locky28
    Hi I am revising for an exam and need to know some implementation issues with the singleton pattern. they do not need to be too complex just basic things that would affect a developers decision to include them, Thanks P.S. Could any code examples be given in Java thanks.

    Read the article

  • Exception handling pattern

    - by treefrog
    It is a common pattern I see where the error codes associated with an exception are stored as Static final ints. when the exception is created to be thrown, it is constructed with one of these codes along with an error message. This results in the method that is going to catch it having to look at the code and then decide on a course of action. The alternative seems to be- declare a class for EVERY exception error case Is there a middle ground ? what is the recommended method ?

    Read the article

  • Should I put a try-finally block after every Object.Create?

    - by max
    I have a general question about best practice in OO Delphi. Currently, I put try-finally blocks anywhere I create an object to free that object after usage (to avoid memory leaks). E.g.: aObject := TObject.Create; try aOBject.AProcedure(); ... finally aObject.Free; end; instead of: aObject := TObject.Create; aObject.AProcedure(); .. aObject.Free; Do you think it is good practice, or too much overhead? And what about the performance?

    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

  • 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

  • What's wrong (or right) with this JS Object Pattern?

    - by unsane1
    Here's an example of the pattern I'm using in my javascript objects these days (this example relies on jQuery). http://pastie.org/private/ryn0m1gnjsxdos9onsyxg It works for me reasonably well, but I'm guessing there's something wrong, or at least sub-optimal about it, I'm just curious to get people's opinions. Here's a smaller, inline example of it: sample = function(attach) { // set internal reference to self var self = this; // public variable(s) self.iAmPublic = true; // private variable(s) var debug = false; var host = attach; var pane = { element: false, display: false } // public function(s) self.show = function() { if (!pane.display) { position(); $(pane.element).show('fast'); pane.display = true; } } self.hide = function() { if (pane.display) { $(pane.element).hide('fast'); pane.display = false; } } // private function(s) function init () { // do whatever stuff is needed on instantiation of this object // like perhaps positioning a hidden div pane.element = document.createElement('div'); return self; } function position() { var h = { 'h': $(host).outerHeight(), 'w': $(host).outerWidth(), 'pos': $(host).offset() }; var p = { 'w': $(pane.element).outerWidth() }; $(pane.element).css({ top: h.pos.top + (h.h-1), left: h.pos.left + ((h.w - p.w) / 2) }); } function log () { if (debug) { console.log(arguments); } } // on-instantiation let's set ourselves up return init(); } I'm really curious to get people's thoughts on this.

    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

  • What is the right way to implement communication between java objects?

    - by imoschak
    I'm working on an academic project which simulates a rather large queuing procedure in java. The core of the simulator rests within one package where there exist 8 classes, each one implementing a single concept. Every class in the project follows SRP. These classes encapsulate the behavior of the simulator and inter-connect every other class in the project. The problem that has arisen is that most of these 8 classes are, as is logical i think, tightly coupled and each one has to have working knowledge of every other class in this package in order to be able to call methods from it when needed. The application needs only one instance of each class so it might be better to create static fields for each class in a new class and use that to make calls -instead of preserving a reference in each class for every other class in the package (which I'm certain that is incorrect)-, but is this considered a correct design solution? or is there a design pattern maybe that better suits my needs?

    Read the article

  • How to organize database access code in Android project?

    - by Mladen Jablanovic
    I have created a ContentProvider for my main Sqlite table, pretty much following NotePad example from SDK (although I am not sure whether I will ever be exposing my data to other apps). However, I need to create lots of other, non-trivial queries on that and other tables and views. A good example would be queries to extract some statistics from the base data, averages, totals etc. So what's the best place for this code in an Android project? How it should be related and connected to the Uri-based data access exposed by a Provider? Any good examples out there?

    Read the article

  • How to dispose the objects created by factory pattern

    - by Ram
    Hi, I am using Factory pattern to create .NET objects of a class. I also need to make sure that all such objects should be disposed before application terminates. Where and How can I dispose the objects created by factory pattern? Shall I dispose in the class in which I am getting the objects created by factory?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190  | Next Page >