Search Results

Search found 2923 results on 117 pages for 'naming standards'.

Page 3/117 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Naming booleans

    - by wrongusername
    If I only want to check if something is impossible or not (i.e., I will not be using something like if(possible)), should I name the boolean notPossible and use if(notPossible) or should I name it possible and use if(!possible) instead? And just to be sure, if I also have to check for whether it is possible, I would name the boolean possible and use if(possible) along with else, right?

    Read the article

  • Coding Conventions - Naming Enums

    - by Walter White
    Hi all, Is there a document describing how to name enumerations? My preference is that an enum is a type. So, for instance, you have an enum Fruit{Apple,Orange,Banana,Pear, ... } NetworkConnectionType{LAN,Data_3g,Data_4g, ... } I am opposed to naming it: FruitEnum NetworkConnectionTypeEnum I understand it is easy to pick off which files are enums, but then you would also have: NetworkConnectionClass FruitClass Also, is there a good document describing the same for constants, where to declare them, etc.? Walter

    Read the article

  • naming a function that exhibits "set if not equal" behavior

    - by Chris Sears
    This might be an odd question, but I'm looking for a word to use in a function name. I'm normally good at coming up with succinct, meaningful function names, but this one has me stumped so I thought I'd appeal for help. The function will take some desired state as an argument and compare it to the current state. If no change is needed, the function will exit normally without doing anything. Otherwise, the function will take some action to achieve the desired state. For example, if wanted to make sure the front door was closed, i might say: my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') What word or term should use in place of the something? I'd like it to be short, readable, and minimize the astonishment factor. A couple clarifying points... I would want someone calling the function to intuitively know they didn't need to wrap the function an 'if' that checks the current state. For example, this would be bad: if my_house.front_door_is_open(): my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') Also, they should know that the function won't throw an exception if the desired state matches the current state. So this should never happen: try: my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') except DoorWasAlreadyClosedException: pass Here are some options I've considered: my_house.set_front_door('closed') my_house.setne_front_door('closed') # ne=not equal, from the setne x86 instruction my_house.ensure_front_door('closed') my_house.configure_front_door('closed') my_house.update_front_door('closed') my_house.make_front_door('closed') my_house.remediate_front_door('closed') And I'm open to other forms, but most I've thought of don't improve readability. Such as... my_house.ensure_front_door_is('closed') my_house.conditionally_update_front_door('closed') my_house.change_front_door_if_needed('closed') Thanks for any input!

    Read the article

  • CSS naming guildlines with elements with multiple classes

    - by ryanzec
    Its seems like there are 2 ways someone can handle naming classes for elements that are designed to have multiple classes. One way would be: <span class="btn btn-success"></span> This is something that twitter bootstrap uses. Another possibility I would think would be: <span class="btn success"></span> It seems like the zurb foundation uses this method. Now the benefits of the first that I can see is that there less chance of outside css interfering with styling as the class name btn-success would not be as common as the class name success. The benefit of the second as I can see is that there is less typing and potential better style reuse. Are there any other benefits/disadvantages of either option and is one of them more popular than the other?

    Read the article

  • C# coding standards” Use the const directive only on natural constants

    - by Nathan Wilfert
    I've seen these 2 guidelines in coding c# standard and I’m not sure the what the 2nd one means. With the exception of zero and one, never hard-code a numeric value; always declare a constant instead. Use the const directive only on natural constants such as the number of days of the week. 1st what is the definition of a natural constants and if the number is not a natural constants given the 1st rule how does one declare a constant in c# without the const directive? See http://www.scribd.com/doc/10731655/IDesign-C-Coding-Standard-232 for reference.

    Read the article

  • How to negotiate with software vendors who do not follow HL7 standards

    - by Peter Turner
    Take, for instance the "", I'd hope that anyone who has spent any time in dealing with HL7 messages knows that the "" signifies that something should be deleted. "" is not an empty string, it's not a filler etc... But occasionally, one may meet a vendor who persists in sending "" instead of just sending nothing at all. Since, I work for a small business and have an extremely flexible HL7 interface, I can ignore ""'s in received messages. But these things are adding up. Some vendors like to send custom formatted fields with psuedo-components that they leave others to interpret themselves. Some vendors send all their information in note segments and assume you're going to only show users the information they send in a monospace font. Some vendors even have the audacity to send Carriage Return Line Feeds at the end of each line of a file interface. Some vendors absolutely refuse to send decimal numbers and in-so-doing refuse to send any numbers. So, with all this crippling humanity against the simple plastic software man, how does one bend without breaking*? Or better yet, how does one fight back and still make money? *my answer is usually to create an interface for the interface and keep the HL7 processing pure, but I don't think this is the best solution

    Read the article

  • Hidden web standards behind Google "custom searchEngines"?

    - by Hoàng Long
    Today while playing with Google Chrome Omnibox, I notice a strange behavior. I guess there's some "hidden" web standard behind it, but can't figure it out. Here's how to reproduce: Go to http://edition.cnn.com/ Use the search function at the higher right corner, Search a random keyword, for example: "abc" Close the tabs. Open a new tab, type until Chrome reminds you about http://edition.cnn.com/, then press "Tab" The Omnibox now shows "Search CNN.com"! And when you type "abc" and press Enter, it uses the CNN search function to do the job, not Google! I also tried it for several different sites. To some it won't work. But to some sites, like CNN, vnexpress.net, it works after I use the search function of that site once. I also learnt about chrome://settings/searchEngines (type it in your chrome box and you will see), and learnt about you can add custom search engine in chrome. But the question is, why Chrome can realize the search URL automatically to some pages, and not others? It's not because some site subscribe to Google service, because I can do the same method for my site (http://ledohoanglong.wordpress.com), and I'm sure that there's no subscription. So I guess there's a method to "expose" the search function of a site, so that Google Chrome can catch it (after I call the search function of that site once, of courses). Does anyone know about how it works behind the scene?

    Read the article

  • The curious case(s) of the Microsoft product naming department

    - by AaronBertrand
    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Okay, it was here on earth, a little over 5 years ago. With SQL Server 2005, Microsoft introduced a very useful feature called the DAC. DAC stands for "dedicated administrator connection"... you can read about it here , but essentially, it allows you a single connection into the server with priority resource allocation - so you can actually get in and kill a rogue process that is otherwise taking over the server. On its own this was a fine acronym choice,...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that do the same thing but return different types

    - by Konstantin Ð.
    Let's assume that I'm extending a graphical file chooser class (JFileChooser). This class has methods which display the file chooser dialog and return a status signature in the form of an int: APPROVE_OPTION if the user selects a file and hits Open /Save, CANCEL_OPTION if the user hits Cancel, and ERROR_OPTION if something goes wrong. These methods are called showDialog(). I find this cumbersome, so I decide to make another method that returns a File object: in the case of APPROVE_OPTION, it returns the file selected by the user; otherwise, it returns null. This is where I run into a problem: would it be okay for me to keep the showDialog() name, even though methods with that name — and a different return type — already exist? To top it off, my method takes an additional parameter: a File which denotes in which directory the file chooser should start. My question to you: Is it okay to call a method the same name as a superclass method if they return different types? Or would that be confusing to API users? (If so, what other name could I use?) Alternatively, should I keep the name and change the return type so it matches that of the other methods? public int showDialog(Component parent, String approveButtonText) // Superclass method public File showDialog(Component parent, File location) // My method

    Read the article

  • Why PHP Function Naming so Inconsistent?

    - by Shamim Hafiz
    I was going through some PHP functions and I could not help notice the following: <?php function foo(&$var) { } foo($a); // $a is "created" and assigned to null $b = array(); foo($b['b']); var_dump(array_key_exists('b', $b)); // bool(true) $c = new StdClass; foo($c->d); var_dump(property_exists($c, 'd')); // bool(true) ?> Notice the array_key_exists() and property_exists() function. In the first one, the property name(key for an array) is the first parameter while in the second one it is the second parameter. By intuition, one would expect them to have similar signature. This can lead to confusion and the development time may be wasted by making corrections of this type. Shouldn't PHP, or any language for that matter, consider making the signatures of related functions consistent?

    Read the article

  • Naming boolean field that is a verb

    - by dnhang
    In Java, by convention getter and setter for boolean fields will be isField() and setField(). This works perfectly fine with field names that are adjectives like active, visible, closed, etc. But how do I name a field that has meaning of a verb, like haveChildren? Add _ing to the verb (havingChildren), maybe? Edit: to clarify, I don't have control of the method names (getter and setter), they are auto-generated by the IDE. So what I need is an appropriate field name so that when the IDE generate a getter for it, it make senses. For example, hasChildren is a perfect field name, but when the IDE generate the getter for the field it would be isHasChildren. How do I solve this?

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that perform HTTP GET/POST calls?

    - by antonpug
    In the application I am currently working on, there are generally 3 types of HTTP calls: pure GETs pure POSTs (updating the model with new data) "GET" POSTs (posting down an object to get some data back, no updates to the model) In the integration service, generally we name methods that post "postSomething()", and methods that get, "getSomething()". So my question is, if we have a "GET" POST, should the method be called: getSomething - seeing as the purpose is to obtain data postSomething - since we are technically using POST performSomeAction - arbitrary name that's more relevant to the action What are everyone's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Naming a class that processes orders

    - by p.campbell
    I'm in the midst of refactoring a project. I've recently read Clean Code, and want to heed some of the advice within, with particular interest in Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). Currently, there's a class called OrderProcessor in the context of a manufacturing product order system. This class is currently performs the following routine every n minutes: check database for newly submitted + unprocessed orders (via a Data Layer class already, phew!) gather all the details of the orders mark them as in-process iterate through each to: perform some integrity checking call a web service on a 3rd party system to place the order check status return value of the web service for success/fail email somebody if web service returns fail constantly log to a text file on each operation or possible fail point I've started by breaking out this class into new classes like: OrderService - poor name. This is the one that wakes up every n minutes OrderGatherer - calls the DL to get the order from the database OrderIterator (? seems too forced or poorly named) - OrderPlacer - calls web service to place the order EmailSender Logger I'm struggling to find good names for each class, and implementing SRP in a reasonable way. How could this class be separated into new class with discrete responsibilities?

    Read the article

  • Pure virtual or abstract, what's in a name?

    - by Steven Jeuris
    While discussing a question about virtual functions on Stack Overflow, I wondered whether there was any official naming for pure (abstract) and non-pure virtual functions. I always relied on wikipedia for my information, which states that pure and non-pure virtual functions are the general term. Unfortunately, the article doesn't back it up with a origin or references. To quote Jon Skeet's answer to my reply that pure and non-pure are the general term used: @Steven: Hmm... possibly, but I've only ever seen it in the context of C++ before. I suspect anyone talking about them is likely to have a C++ background :) Did the terms originate from C++, or were they first defined or implemented in a earlier language, and are they the 'official' scientific terms?

    Read the article

  • What is the convention for the star location in reference variables?

    - by Brett Ryan
    Have been learning Objective-C and different books and examples use differing conventions for the location of the star (*) when naming reference variables. MyType* x; MyType *y; MyType*z; // this also works Personally I prefer the first option as it illustrates that x is a "pointer type of MyType". I see the first two used interchangeably, and sometimes in the same code I've seen differing uses of both. I want to know what is the most common convention It's been a very long time since I've programmed in C (15 years) so I can't remember if all variants are legal for C also or if this is Objective-C specific. I'd prefer answers which state why one is better than the other, as how I explained how I read it above.

    Read the article

  • How important is to avoid name collisions between libraries belonging to different domains?

    - by Sergio
    I have written a small open source Java library for facilitating conversions between different types of objects (in the style of Google's gson, but quite more general). It seems to me that a nice natural name for my library is JConverter, after browsing in the web to see if another library with the same name already exists, I found a library with the same name for Joomla. My concrete question is: How important is to avoid naming collisions when creating an open source library if an existing library with the chosen name already exists in a complete different domain ? (in my concrete case, these are libraries even implemented for different languages).

    Read the article

  • The standards that fail us and the intellectual bubble

    - by Jeff
    There has been a great deal of noise in the techie community about standards, and a sudden and unexplainable hate for Flash. This noise isn't coming from consumers... the countless soccer moms, teens and your weird uncle Bob, it's coming from the people who build (or at least claim to build) the stuff those consumers consume. If you could survey the position of consumers on the topic, they'd likely tell you that they just want stuff on the Web to work.The noise goes something like this: Web standards are the correct and right thing to use across the Intertubes, and anything not a part of those standards (Flash) is bad. Furthermore, the more recent noise is centered around the idea that HTML 5, along with Javascript, is the right thing to use. The arguments against Flash are, well, the truth is I haven't seen a good argument. I see anecdotal nonsense about high CPU usage and things I'd never think to check when I'm watching Piano Cat on YouTube, but these aren't arguments to me. Sure, I've seen it crash a browser a few times, but it's totally rare.But let's go back to standards. Yes, standards have played an important role in establishing the ubiquity of the Web. The protocols themselves, TCP/IP and HTTP, have been critical. HTML, which has served us well for a very long time, established an incredible foundation. Javascript did an OK job, and thanks to clever programmers writing great frameworks like JQuery, is becoming more and more useful. CSS is awful (there, I said it, I feel SO much better), and I'll never understand why it's so disconnected and different from anything else. It doesn't help that it's so widely misinterpreted by different browsers. Still, there's no question that standards are a good thing, and they've been good for the Web, consumers and publishers alike.HTML 4 has been with us for more than a decade. In Web years, that might as well be 80. HTML 5, contrary to popular belief, is not a standard, and likely won't be for many years to come. In fact, the Web hasn't really evolved at all in terms of its standards. The tools that generate the standard markup and script have, but at the end of the day, we're still living with standards that are more than ten years old. The "official" standards process has failed us.The Web evolved anyway, and did not wait for standards bodies to decide what to do next. It evolved in part because Macromedia, then Adobe, kept evolving Flash. In the earlier days, it mostly just did obnoxious splash pages, but then it started doing animation, and then rich apps as they added form input. Eventually it found its killer app: video. Now more than 95% of browsers have Flash installed. Consumers are better for it.But I'll do it one better... I'll go out on a limb and say that Flash is a standard. If it's that pervasive, I don't care what you tell me, it's a standard. Just because a company owns it doesn't mean that it's evil or not a standard. And hey, it pains me to say that as a developer, because I think the dev tools are the suck (more on that in a minute). But again, consumers don't care. They don't even pay for Flash. The bottom line is that if I put something Flash based on the Internet, it's likely that my audience will see it.And what about the speed of standards owned by a company? Look no further than Silverlight. Silverlight 2 (which I consider the "real" start to the story) came out about a year and a half ago. Now version 4 is out, and it has come a very long way in its capabilities. If you believe Riastats.com, more than half of browsers have it now. It didn't have to wait for standards bodies and nerds drafting documents, it's out today. At this rate, Silverlight will be on version 6 or 7 by the time HTML 5 is a ratified standard.Back to the noise, one of the things that has continually disappointed me about this profession is the number of people who get stuck in an intellectual bubble, color it with dogmatic principles, and completely ignore the actual marketplace where this stuff all has to live. We aren't machines; Binary thinking that forces us to choose between "open standards" and "proprietary lock-in" (the most loaded b.s. FUD term evar) isn't smart at all. The truth is that the <object> tag has allowed us to build incredible stuff on top of the old standards, and consumers have benefitted greatly. Consumer desire, capitalism, and yes, standards ratified by nerds who think about this stuff for years have all played a role in the broad adoption of the Interwebs.We could all do without the noise. At the end of the day, I'm going to build stuff for the Web that's good for my users, and I'm not going to base my decisions on a techie bubble religion. Imagine what the brilliant minds behind the noise could do for the Web if they joined me in that pursuit.

    Read the article

  • Naming conventions for newtype deconstructors (destructors?)

    - by Petr Pudlák
    Looking into Haskell's standard library we can see: newtype StateT s m a = StateT { runStateT :: s -> m (a, s) } newtype WrappedMonad m a = WrapMonad { unwrapMonad :: m a } newtype Sum a = Sum { getSum :: a } Apparently, there (at least) 3 different prefixes used to unwrap a value inside a newtype: un-, run- and get-. (Moreover run- and get- capitalizes the next letter while un- doesn't.) This seems confusing. Are there any reasons for that, or is that just a historical thing? If I design my own newtype, what prefix should I use and why?

    Read the article

  • User defined type for healthcare / Medical Records variable name prefixes?

    - by Peter Turner
    I was reading Code Complete regarding variable naming in trying to find an answer to this question and stumbled on a table of commonly accepted prefixes for programming word processor software. Well, I'm not a word processor software programmer, but if I was, I'd be happy to use those user defined types. Since I'm a programmer for a smallish healthcare ISV, and have no contact with the larger community of healthcare software programmers (other than the neglected and forsaken HealthCareIT.SE where I never had the chance to ask this question). I want to know if there is a coding convention for medical records. Like Patient = pnt and Chart = chrt and Medication = med or mdctn or whatever. I'm not talking full on hungarian notation, but just a standard that would fit in code complete in place of that wonderful chart of word processor UDT's which are of so little use to me.

    Read the article

  • C/C++: Who uses the logical operator macros from iso646.h and why?

    - by Jaime Soto
    There has been some debate at work about using the merits of using the alternative spellings for C/C++ logical operators in iso646.h: and && and_eq &= bitand & bitor | compl ~ not ! not_eq != or || or_eq |= xor ^ xor_eq ^= According to Wikipedia, these macros facilitate typing logical operators in international (non-US English?) and non-QWERTY keyboards. All of our development team is in the same office in Orlando, FL, USA and from what I have seen we all use the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; even Dvorak provides all the necessary characters. Supporters of using the iso646.h macros claim we should them because they are part of the C and C++ standards. I think this argument is moot since digraphs and trigraphs are also part of these standards and they are not even supported by default in many compilers. My rationale for opposing these macros in our team is that we do not need them since: Everybody on our team uses the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; C and C++ programming books from the US barely mention iso646.h, if at all; and new developers may not be familiar with iso646.h (this is expected if they are from the US). /rant Finally, to my set of questions: Does anyone in this site use the iso646.h logical operator macros? Why? What is your opinion about using the iso646.h logical operator macros in code written and maintained on US English QWERTY keyboards? Is my digraph and trigraph analogy a valid argument against using iso646.h with US English QWERTY keyboard layouts? EDIT: I missed two similar questions in StackOverflow: Is anybody using the named boolean operators? Which C++ logical operators do you use: and, or, not and the ilk or C style operators? why?

    Read the article

  • ISO/IEC Website and Charging for C and C++ Standards

    - by Michael Aaron Safyan
    The ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899) and the ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882) are not published online; instead, one must purchase the PDF for each of those standards. I am wondering what the rationale is behind this... is it not detrimental to both the C and C++ programming languages that the authoritative specification for these languages is not made freely available and searchable online? Doesn't this encourage the use of possibly inaccurate, non-authoritative sources for information regarding these standards? While I understand that much time and effort has gone into developing the C and C++ standards, I am still somewhat puzzled by the choice to charge for the specification. The OpenGroup Base Specification, for example, is available for free online; they make money buy charging for certification. Does anyone know why the ISO standards committees don't make their revenue in certifying standards compliance, instead of charging for these documents? Also, does anyone know if the ISO standards committee's atrociously looking website is intentionally made to look that way? It's as if they don't want people visiting and buying the spec. One last thing... the C and C++ standards are generally described as "open standards"... while I realize that this means that anyone is permitted to implement the standard, should that definition of "open" be revised? Charging for the standard rather than making it openly available seems contrary to the spirit of openness. P.S. I do have a copy of the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003, so please no remarks about being cheap or anything... although if you are tempted to say such things, you might want to consider the high school, undergraduate, and graduate students who might not have all that much extra cash. Also, you might want to consider the fact that the ISO website is really sketchy and they don't even tell you the cost until you proceed to the checkout... doesn't really encourage one to go and get a copy, now does it?

    Read the article

  • Scientific evidence that supports using long variable names instead of abbreviations?

    - by Sebastian Dietz
    Is there any scientific evidence that the human brain can read and understand fully written variable names better/faster than abbreviated ones? Like PersistenceManager persistenceManager; in contrast to PersistenceManager pm; I have the impression that I get a better grasp of code that does not use abbreviations, even if the abbreviations would have been commonly used throughout the codebase. Can this individual feeling be backed up by any studies?

    Read the article

  • Are very short or abbreviated method/function names that don't use full words bad practice or a matter of style.

    - by Alb
    Is there nowadays any case for brevity over clarity with method names? Tonight I came across the Python method repr() which seems like a bad name for a method to me. It's not an English word. It apparently is an abbreviation of 'representation' and even if you can deduce that, it still doesn't tell you what the method does. A good method name is subjective to a certain degree, but I had assumed that modern best practices agreed that names should be at least full words and descriptive enough to reveal enough about the method that you would easily find one when looking for it. Method names made from words help let your code read like English. repr() seems to have no advantages as a name other than being short and IDE auto-complete makes this a non-issue. An additional reason given in an answer is that python names are brief so that you can do many things on one line. Surely the better way is to just extract the many things to their own function, and repeat until lines are not too long. Are these just a hangover from the unix way of doing things? Commands with names like ls, rm, ps and du (if you could call those names) were hard to find and hard to remember. I know that the everyday usage of commands such as these is different than methods in code so the matter of whether those are bad names is a different matter.

    Read the article

  • My Doors - Why Standards Matter to Business

    - by [email protected]
    By Brian Dayton on April 8, 2010 9:27 PM "Standards save money." "Standards accelerate projects." "Standards make better solutions." What do these statements mean to you? You buy technology solutions like Oracle Applications but you're a business person--trying to close the quarter, get performance reviews processed, negotiate a new sourcing contract, etc. When "standards" come up in presentations and discussions do you: - Nod your head politely - Tune out and check your smart phone - Turn to your IT counterpart and say "Bob's all over this standards thing, right Bob?" Here's why standards matter. My wife wants new external doors downstairs, ones that would get more light into the rooms. Am I OK with that? "Uhh, sure...it's a little dark in the kitchen." - 24 hours ago - wife calls to tell me that she's going to the hardware store and may look at doors - 20 hours ago - wife pulls into driveway, informs me that two doors are in the back of her station wagon, ready for me to carry - 19 hours ago - I re-discovered the fact that it's not fun to carry a solid wood door by myself - 5 hours ago - Local handyman, who was at our house anyway, tells me that the doors we bought will likely cost 2-3x the material cost in installation time and labor...the doors are standard but our doorways aren't We could have done more research. I could be more handy. Sure. But the fact is, my 1951 house wasn't built with me in mind. They built what worked and called it a day. The same holds true with a lot of business applications. They were designed and architected for one-time use with one use-case in mind. Today's business climate is different. If you're going to use your processes and technology to differentiate your business you should have at least a working knowledge of: - How standards can benefit your business - Your IT organization's philosophy around standards - Your vendor's track-record around standards...and watch for those who pay lip-service to standards but don't follow through The rallying cry in most IT organizations today is "learn more about the business, drop the acronyms." I'm not advocating that you go out and learn how to code in Java. But I do believe it will help your business and your decision-making process if you meet IT ½...even ¼ of the way there. Epilogue: The door project has been put on hold and yours truly has to return the doors to the hardware store tomorrow.

    Read the article

  • Python lower_case_with_underscores style convention: underscores not popular?

    - by squirrel
    PEP8 recommends using lowercase, with words separated by underscores as necessary to improve readability for variable and function names. I've seen this interpreted as lower_case_with_underscores by most people, although in practice and in Python's native methods it seems like lowercasewithoutunderscores is more popular. It seems like following PEP8 strictly would be awkward since it seems to suggest mixing both lower_case_with_underscores and lowercasewithoutunderscores, which would be inconsistent. What is your interpretation of PEP8's variable names, and what do you actually use in practice? (Personally, I like lowerCamelCase as a compromise between readability and ease of typing.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >