Search Results

Search found 8664 results on 347 pages for 'lost with coding'.

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 47/347 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Should I use block identifiers ("end;") in my code?

    - by JosephStyons
    Code Complete says it is good practice to always use block identifiers, both for clarity and as a defensive measure. Since reading that book, I've been doing that religiously. Sometimes it seems excessive though, as in the case below. Is Steve McConnell right to insist on always using block identifiers? Which of these would you use? //naughty and brief with myGrid do for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do if RowChanged(currRow) then if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then InsertNewRecord(currRow) else UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); //well behaved and verbose with myGrid do begin for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do begin if RowChanged(currRow) then begin if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then begin InsertNewRecord(currRow); end //if it didn't exist, so insert it else begin UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); end; //else it existed, so update it end; //if any change end; //for each row in the grid end; //with myGrid

    Read the article

  • C++ iterators & loop optimization

    - by Quantum7
    I see a lot of c++ code that looks like this: for( const_iterator it = list.begin(), const_iterator ite = list.end(); it != ite; ++it) As opposed to the more concise version: for( const_iterator it = list.begin(); it != list.end(); ++it) Will there be any difference in speed between these two conventions? Naively the first will be slightly faster since list.end() is only called once. But since the iterator is const, it seems like the compiler will pull this test out of the loop, generating equivalent assembly for both.

    Read the article

  • Style question about existing piece of code (C/C++)

    - by Leif Ericson
    I just hope the following doesn't seem to you like redundant jabber :) Anyway, there is that: for (p = fmt; *p; p++) { if (*p != '%') { putchar(*p); continue; } switch (*++p) { /* Some cases here */ ... } } And I wondered why the writer (Kernighan / Ritchie) used the continue in the if statement. I thought it was for the mere reason that he deemed it would be more elegant than indenting the whole switch under an else statement, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • Examples of both beautiful and ugly java code?

    - by tputkonen
    I would like to demonstrate how difficult it is for a layman to identify high quality code from flawed code. I'm thinking of doing this with the help of two java methods. Both of the methods should look like they do the same, pretty simple thing. However one of them should have several kind of flaws, for example: iteration with array off by one error string concatenations causing lots of objects to be created (as opposed to StringBuffer in the "good" code, which looks more complicated) possibly null pointer exception (but it should not be trivial to spot) Those are just some examples, all kinds of other issues including bugs and performance related structures are highly appreciated. Methods should be around 10-20 lines of length, and the task they do should be something simple - preferably printing something in an iteration.

    Read the article

  • Is there a proper and wrong way to format CSS?

    - by DavidR
    When I first started writing CSS, I was writing it in an expanded form div.class { margin: 10px 5px 3px; border: 1px solid #333; font-weight: bold; } .class .subclass { text-align:right; } but now I find myself writing css like this: (Example from code I'm actually writing now) .object1 {} .scrollButton{width:44px;height:135px;} .scrollButton img {padding:51px 0 0 23px;} .object2 {width:165px;height:94px;margin:15px 0 0 23px;padding:15px 0 0 10px;background:#fff;} .featuredObject .symbol{line-height:30px; padding-top:6px;} .featuredObject .value {width:90px;} .featuredObject .valueChange {padding:5px 0 0 0;} .featuredObject img {position:absolute;margin:32px 0 0 107px;} and I'm beginning to worry because a lot of the time I see the first form done in examples online, while I find the second form a lot easier for me to work with. It has a lower vertical height, so I can see all the classes at a glance with less scrolling, the tabulation of the hierarchy seems more apparent, and it looks more like code I'd write with javascript or html. Is this a valid way of doing code, or to keep with standards when putting it online should I use the vertical form instead?

    Read the article

  • Acceptable to have spaces before dot?

    - by Rudy
    What is the general opinion on the 2nd indentation method below. // Normal indentation a.Value = "foobar"; ab.Checked = false; foo.Value = "foobar"; foobar.Checked = true; // Spaces before the dot to align the properties/methods a .Value = "foobar"; ab .Checked = false; foo .Value = "foobar"; foobar.Checked = true; This should probably be a wiki, but I either don't have enough privileges or don't know how to change it.

    Read the article

  • Let and construct versus let in sequence

    - by Stringer
    Consider this OCaml code: let coupe_inter i j cases = let lcases = Array.length cases in let low,_,_ = cases.(i) and _,high,_ = cases.(j) in low,high, Array.sub cases i (j-i+1), case_append (Array.sub cases 0 i) (Array.sub cases (j+1) (lcases-(j+1))) Why the expression let ... and ... in is used in place of a let ... in let ... in sequence (like F# force you to do)? This construct seems quite frequent in OCaml code. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Purpose of IF, ELSE, FOR macros ?

    - by psihodelia
    I have a source code of a library which has a lot of strange IF, ELSE, FOR, etc. macros for all common C-keywords instead of using just usual if,else,for,while keywords. These macros are defined like this: #define IF( a) if( increment_if(), a) where increment_if() function is defined so: static __inline void increment_if( void) { // If the "IF" operator comes just after an "ELSE", its counter // must not be incremented. ... //implementation } I don't really understand, what is the purpose of such macros? This library is for a real-time application and I suppose that using such macros must slow-down an application.

    Read the article

  • Semantic #region usage

    - by Luca
    What's your opinion about using #region folding using application semantic, instead of folding for "syntax". For example: #region Application Loop #region User Management #region This Kinf of stuffs instead of #region Private Routines #region Public Properties #region ThisRoutine // (Yes, I've seen this also!) In this logic, I'm starting fold even routine bodies. I'm starting to love #region directive (even using #pragma region when using C++!).

    Read the article

  • How to use SQLiteOpenHelper without or less restrictive use of Context?

    - by Pentium10
    If you extend SQLiteOpenHelper, for the Constructor you have to use a Context. I am wondering if there is a way to leave this out, and be able to work with database tables without a Context. Or at least be least restrictive, I mean a way of project/class structure that will make history the several context passings I have to do now. As it is my application has several level of classes, chained in each other, and there are a few that connects to the database, but have no whatsoever influence on the interface, so they don't actually need the Context. Are you creating your classes in the way that you pass each time a Context to them? If not, how you do, how you reuse a Context in a short class?

    Read the article

  • Best ways to construct Dynamic Search Conditions for Sql

    - by CoolBeans
    I have always wondered what's the best way to achieve this task. In most web based applications you have to provide search options on many different criteria. Based on what criteria is chosen behind the scene you modify your SQL. Generally, this is how I tend to go about it:- Have a base SQL template. In the base template have conditions like this WHERE [#PRE_COND1] AND [#PRE_COND2] .. so on and so forth. So an example SQL might look something like SELECT NAME,AGE FROM PERSONS [,#TABLE2] [,#TABLE3] WHERE [#PRE_COND1] AND [#PRE_COND2] ORDER BY [#ORD_COND1] AND [#ORD_COND2] etc. During run time after figuring out the all the search criteria user has entered, I replace the [#PRE_COND1]s and [#ORD_COND1]s with the appropriate SQLs and then execute the query. I personally do not like this brute force method. However, I never came across a better approach either. How do you accomplish such tasks generally given you are either using native JDBC or Spring JDBC? It is almost like I need a C MACRO like functionality in Java to do this.

    Read the article

  • Is or Are to prefix boolean values

    - by Brian T
    When naming a boolean, or a function returning a boolean it's usual to prefix with 'is' e.g. isPointerNull isShapeSquare What about when refering to multiple items, should it be: arePointersNull or isPointersNull areShapesNull or isShapesNull I can see arguments for both; is offers consistency and perhaps slightly better readability, are makes the code read in a more natural way. Any opinions?

    Read the article

  • Where Should Using Statements Be Located [closed]

    - by Bobby Ortiz - DotNetBob
    Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between these two declarations? I recently started working on a project with using statement located inside the NameSpace block. namespace MyApp.Web { using System; using System.Web.Security; using System.Web; public class MyClass { I usually put my using statements above the namespace block. using System; using System.Web.Security; using System.Web; namespace MyApp.Web { public class MyClass { I don't think it matters, but I am currious if someone else had a recommendation and could they explain why one way is better than another. Note: I always have one class per file.

    Read the article

  • In Eclipse, how do I change the default modifiers in the class/type template?

    - by gustafc
    Eclipse's default template for new types (Window Preferences Code Style Code Templates New Java Files) looks like this: ${filecomment} ${package_declaration} ${typecomment} ${type_declaration} Creating a new class, it'll look something like this: package pkg; import blah.blah; public class FileName { // Class is accessible to everyone, and can be inherited } Now, I'm fervent in my belief that access should be as restricted as possible, and inheritance should be forbidden unless explicitly permitted, so I'd like to change the ${type_declaration} to declare all classes as final rather than public: package pkg; import blah.blah; final class FileName { // Class is only accessible in package, and can't be inherited } That seems easier said than done. The only thing I've found googling is a 2004 question on Eclipse's mailing list which was unanswered. So, the question in short: How can I change the default class/type modifiers in Eclipse? I'm using Eclipse Galileo (3.5) if that matters.

    Read the article

  • Programming logic best practice - redundant checks

    - by eldblz
    I'm creating a large PHP project and I've a trivial doubt about how to proceed. Assume we got a class books, in this class I've the method ReturnInfo: function ReturnInfo($id) { if( is_numeric($id) ) { $query = "SELECT * FROM books WHERE id='" . $id . "' LIMIT 1;"; if( $row = $this->DBDrive->ExecuteQuery($query, $FetchResults=TRUE) ) { return $row; } else { return FALSE; } } else { throw new Exception('Books - ReturnInfo - id not valid.'); } } Then i have another method PrintInfo function PrintInfo($id) { print_r( $this->ReturnInfo($id) ); } Obviously the code sample are just for example and not actual production code. In the second method should I check (again) if id is numeric ? Or can I skip it because is already taken care in the first method and if it's not an exception will be thrown? Till now I always wrote code with redundant checks (no matter if already checked elsewhere i'll check it also here) Is there a best practice? Is just common sense? Thank you in advance for your kind replies.

    Read the article

  • Does any language have a while-else flow structure?

    - by dotancohen
    Consider this flow structure which I happen to use often: if ( hasPosts() ) { while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } Are there any programming languages which have an optional else clause for while, which is to be run if the while loop is never entered? Thus, the code above would become: while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } I find it interesting that many languages have the do-while construct (run the while code once before checking the condition) yet I have never seen while-else addressed. There is precedent for running an N block of code based on what was run in N-1 block, such as the try-catch construct. I wasn't sure whether to post here or on programmers.SE. If this question is more appropriate there, then please move it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Do you code variables in your language?

    - by Phil Hannent
    I am just working on a project where the library has an object with the property color, however being British I always use colour when writing variables and properties. I also just found some legacy code where the British developer used color in a variable name. Is American English the default for development now?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid "incomplete implementation" warning in partial base class

    - by garph0
    I have created a protocol that my classes need to implement, and then factored out some common functionality into a base class, so I did this: @protocol MyProtocol - (void) foo; - (void) bar; @end @interface Base <MyProtocol> @end @interface Derived_1 : Base @end @interface Derived_2 : Base @end @implementation Base - (void) foo{ //something foo } @end @implementation Derived_1 - (void) bar{ //something bar 1 } @end @implementation Derived_2 - (void) bar{ //something bar 2 } @end In this way in my code I use a generic id<MyProtocol>. The code works (as long as Base is not used directly) but the compiler chokes at the end of the implementation of Base with a warning: Incomplete implementation of class Base Is there a way to avoid this warning or, even better, a more proper way to obtain this partially implemented abstract base class behavior in Objc?

    Read the article

  • Could someone tell me if my C++ indent style is named? (example given)

    - by Maulrus
    I'm learning C++. For me, my programming style is just what looks the best; it doesn't seem to follow the rules of any one particular style. Here's an example void f(int x){ //no space between close-paren and bracket if (!x){ cout << "x is non-zero\n"; } //closing bracket indented to the same level as the original statement } It's only slightly different for something like a class or a namespace: class myClass {}; //space between class name and bracket, otherwise the same as functions K&R style does uses that kind of bracketing for statements, but my style uses it for everything. I'd like to know if there's a name for it so I can say simply what my indent style is without having to explain using examples like these.

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to apply some basic macros to simplify code in a large project?

    - by DoctorT
    I've been working on a foundational c++ library for some time now, and there are a variety of ideas I've had that could really simplify the code writing and managing process. One of these is the concept of introducing some macros to help simplify statements that appear very often, but are a bit more complicated than should be necessary. For example, I've come up with this basic macro to simplify the most common type of for loop: #define loop(v,n) for(unsigned long v=0; v<n; ++v) This would enable you to replace those clunky for loops you see so much of: for (int i = 0, i < max_things; i++) With something much easier to write, and even slightly more efficient: loop (i, max_things) Is it a good idea to use conventions like this? Are there any problems you might run into with different types of compilers? Would it just be too confusing for someone unfamiliar with the macro(s)?

    Read the article

  • Interface with inner implementation - good or bad

    - by dermoritz
    I am working on a project with many someInterface - someInterfaceImpl-pairs. Some days ago I got the idea (probably inspired by reading some objective c code) to include the default implementations as an inner class. Now some colleagues (all with much more java experience than me) saw this idea - feedback was between shocked and surprised ("this is working?"). I googled around a bit but didn't find much evidence of usefulness of this "pattern" (personal i like it): pdf-paper and a faq about code style What do you think - especially in those cases where an "default" implementation is tightly coupled to an interface. Update i just found this: Java Interface-Implementation Pair (see accepted answer)

    Read the article

  • codingstyle "blanking after open and before close brackets"

    - by Oops
    Hi, I really like the "blanking after open and before close brackets"-codingstyle in modern codes Java/C#/C++ . e.g. calling a function: foo(myparam); // versus foo( myparam ); Do you have a better name for this codingstyle? where does it come from? Do you like it either, what is the reason for you to use it or not use it? a few years ago people said "you are blanking" if one has used too much blank space characters in a forumspost or email. many thanks in advance regards Oops

    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 | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >