Search Results

Search found 4607 results on 185 pages for 'me and coding'.

Page 31/185 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• PHP Commercial Project Function define

  - by Shiro

  Currently I am working with a commercial project with PHP. I think this question not really apply to PHP for all programming language, just want to discuss how your guys solve it. I work in MVC framework (CodeIgniter). all the database transaction code in model class. Previously, I seperate different search criteria with different function name. Just an example function get_student_detail_by_ID($id){} function get_student_detail_by_name($name){} as you can see the function actually can merge to one, just add a parameter for it. But something you are rushing with project, you won't look back previously got what similar function just make some changes can meet the goal. In this case, we found that there is a lot function there and hard to maintenance. Recently, we try to group the entity to one ultimate search something like this function get_ResList($is_row_count=FALSE, $record_start=0, $arr_search_criteria='', $paging_limit=20, $orderby='name', $sortdir='ASC') we try to make this function to fit all the searching criteria. However, our system getting bigger and bigger, the search criteria not more 1-2 tables. It require join with other table with different purpose. What we had done is using IF ELSE, if(bla bla bla) { $sql_join = JOIN_SOME_TABLE; $sql_where = CONDITION; } at the end, we found that very hard to maintance the function. it is very hard to debug as well. I would like to ask your opinion, what is the commercial solution they solve this kind of issue, how to define a function and how to revise it. I think this is link project management skill. Hope you willing to share with us. Thanks.

  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

• 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

• 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

• putting a capital 'I' in front of JAVA interfaces

  - by jax

  Many years ago when I was at uni they said to put a capital i (I) in front of interfaces. Is this still a convention because I see many interfaces that do not follow this.

  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

• 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

• 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

• Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants?

  - 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?

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Better way to write this Java code?

  - by Macha

  public void handleParsedCommand(String[] commandArr) { if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("message")) { int target = Integer.parseInt(commandArr[1]); String message = commandArr[2]; MachatServer.sendMessage(target, this.conId, message); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("quit")) { // Tell the server to disconnect us. MachatServer.disconnect(conId); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("confirmconnect")) { // Blah blah and so on for another 10 types of command } else { try { out.write("Unknown: " + commandArr[0] + "\n"); } catch (IOException e) { System.out.println("Failed output warning of unknown command."); } } } I have this part of my server code for handling the types of messages. Each message contains the type in commandArr[0] and the parameters in the rest of commandArr[]. However, this current code, while working seems very unelegant. Is there a better way to handle it? (To the best of my knowledge, String values can't be used in switch statements, and even then, a switch statement would only be a small improvement.

  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

• Use of 'super' keyword when accessing non-overridden superclass methods

  - by jonny

  I'm trying to get the hang of inheritance in Java and have learnt that when overriding methods (and hiding fields) in sub classes, they can still be accessed from the super class by using the 'super' keyword. What I want to know is, should the 'super' keyword be used for non-overridden methods? Is there any difference (for non-overridden methods / non-hidden fields)? I've put together an example below. public class Vehicle { public int tyreCost; public Vehicle(int tyreCost) { this.tyreCost = tyreCost; } public int getTyreCost() { return tyreCost; } } and public class Car extends Vehicle { public int wheelCount; public Vehicle(int tyreCost, int wheelCount) { super(tyreCost); this.wheelCount = wheelCount; } public int getTotalTyreReplacementCost() { return getTyreCost() * wheelCount; } } Specifically, given that getTyreCost() hasn't been overridden, should getTotalTyreReplacementCost() use getTyreCost(), or super.getTyreCost() ? I'm wondering whether super should be used in all instances where fields or methods of the superclass are accessed (to show in the code that you are accessing the superclass), or only in the overridden/hidden ones (so they stand out).

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >