Search Results

Search found 5642 results on 226 pages for 'coding efficiency'.

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 48/226 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Is there a concise way to map a string to an enum in Objective-C?

    - by zekel
    I have a string I want to parse and return an equivalent enum. I need to use the enum type elsewhere, and I think I like how I'm defining the class. The problem is that I don't know a good way to check the string against the enum values without being redundant about the order of the enums. typedef enum { ZZColorRed, ZZColorGreen, ZZColorBlue, } ZZColorType; - (ZZColorType)parseColor:(NSString *)inputString { // inputString will be @"red", @"green", or @"blue" (trust me) // how can I turn that into ZZColorRed, etc. without // redefining their order like this? NSArray *colors = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:@"red", @"green", @"blue", nil]; return [colors indexOfObject:inputString]; } In Python, I'd probably do something like the following, although to be honest I'm not in love with that either. ## maps url text -> constant string RED_CONSTANT = 1 BLUE_CONSTANT = 2 GREEN_CONSTANT = 3 TYPES = { 'red': RED_CONSTANT, 'green': GREEN_CONSTANT, 'blue': BLUE_CONSTANT, } def parseColor(inputString): return TYPES.get(inputString) ps. I know there are color constants in Cocoa, this is just an example.

    Read the article

  • Is this a good approach to execute a list of operations on a data structure in Python?

    - by Sridhar Iyer
    I have a dictionary of data, the key is the file name and the value is another dictionary of its attribute values. Now I'd like to pass this data structure to various functions, each of which runs some test on the attribute and returns True/False. One approach would be to call each function one by one explicitly from the main code. However I can do something like this: #MYmodule.py class Mymodule: def MYfunc1(self): ... def MYfunc2(self): ... #main.py import Mymodule ... #fill the data structure ... #Now call all the functions in Mymodule one by one for funcs in dir(Mymodule): if funcs[:2]=='MY': result=Mymodule.__dict__.get(funcs)(dataStructure) The advantage of this approach is that implementation of main class needn't change when I add more logic/tests to MYmodule. Is this a good way to solve the problem at hand? Are there better alternatives to this solution?

    Read the article

  • What's the deal with a leading underscore in PHP class methods?

    - by nocash
    While looking over various PHP libraries I've noticed that a lot of people choose to prefix some class methods with a single underscore, such as public function _foo() ...instead of... public function foo() I realize that ultimately this comes down to personal preference, but I was wondering if anyone had some insight into where this habit comes from. My thought is that it's probably being carried over from PHP 4, before class methods could be marked as protected or private, as a way of implying "do not call this method from outside the class". However, it also occurred to me that maybe it originates somewhere (a language) I'm not familiar with or that there may be good reasoning behind it that I would benefit from knowing. Any thoughts, insights and/or opinions would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Using 'this': where is good and where is not [closed]

    - by abatishchev
    I like to use 'this' statement for all non-local variables: for properties, for class variables, etc. I do this for code easy reading, easy understanding where from this variable has got. object someVar; object SomeProperty { get; set } void SomeMethod(object arg1, object arg2) { this.SomeProperty = arg1; this.someVar = arg2; } How do you think, what is proper way to use 'this'?

    Read the article

  • Best way to design a class in python

    - by Fraz
    So, this is more like a philosophical question for someone who is trying to understand classes. Most of time, how i use class is actually a very bad way to use it. I think of a lot of functions and after a time just indent the code and makes it a class and replacing few stuff with self.variable if a variable is repeated a lot. (I know its bad practise) But anyways... What i am asking is: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo,bar): self._foo = foo self._bar = bar self.ans = self.__execute() def __execute(self): return something(self._foo, self._bar) Now there are many ways to do this: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo): self._foo = foo def execute(self,bar): return something(self._foo, bar) Can you suggest which one is bad and which one is worse? or any other way to do this. This is just a toy example (offcourse). I mean, there is no need to have a class here if there is one function.. but lets say in __execute something() calls a whole set of other methods.. ?? Thanks

    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 | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >