Search Results

Search found 8253 results on 331 pages for 'secure 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 54/331 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How do I program a hyperlink to include a username and password to the target site?

    - by Fred Griffith
    We have a website with a section restricted to members only. They log in and can view the website. Some of the information is stored on another server. We want that information to ONLY be accessible to those who have logged into the main website. What would be the best way to link the two sites, without making members log in again? Seems like there must be some way to send an encrypted username and password along with the URL in the hyperlink. Any ideas? Thank you in advance. Fred G.

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • What's Your favorite f# use? where does f# makes life (a lot) easier (compared to c#)?

    - by luckyluke
    I've skimmed the stack and did not get the overflow as there is probably no such question. I'm just learning f# and I am A seasoned c# and .net dev. I am into financial apps and currently F# helps me a lot with maths calcs like zero finding or minimum finding (although I still want some good maths library there). I see that processing multiple items (files or smth) tends to be easier, but my GUI (web, win) are still c# based. I am in the team of 5 devs and we know that the new tool is out, we are learning it after hours (to pimp ourselves up) but maybe we shouldn't bash the door somebody already opened. So in business apps, whats Your first killer part of soft You would code in F# (if You could and would know IT would be easier, faster, more testable, easier to maintain etc.? Business rules? ImageProcessing? Data processing? hope it's not to subjective. luke

    Read the article

  • How does the verbosity of identifiers affect the performance of a programmer?

    - by DR
    I always wondered: Are there any hard facts which would indicate that either shorter or longer identifiers are better? Example: clrscr() opposed to ClearScreen() Short identifiers should be faster to read because there are fewer characters but longer identifiers often better resemble natural language and therefore also should be faster to read. Are there other aspects which suggest either a short or a verbose style? EDIT: Just to clarify: I didn't ask: "What would you do in this case?". I asked for reasons to prefer one over the other, i.e. this is not a poll question. Please, if you can, add some reason on why one would prefer one style over the other.

    Read the article

  • PHP if statement - select two different get variables?

    - by arsoneffect
    Below is my example script: <li><a <?php if ($_GET['page']=='photos' && $_GET['view']!=="projects"||!=="forsale") { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos\""); } ?>>Photos</a></li> <li><a <?php if ($_GET['view']=='projects') { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos&view=projects\""); } ?>>Projects</a></li> <li><a <?php if ($_GET['view']=='forsale') { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos&view=forsale\""); } ?>>For Sale</a></li> I want the PHP to echo the "href="#" class="active" only when it is not on the two pages: ?page=photos&view=forsale or ?page=photos&view=projects

    Read the article

  • Logical value of an assignment in C

    - by Andy Shulman
    while (curr_data[1] != (unsigned int)NULL && ((curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) || 1)) Two part question. What will (curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) evaluate to, logically. TRUE? Also, I know its rather hack-ish, but is the while statement legal C? I would have to go through great contortions to put the assignment elsewhere in the code, so I'd be really nice if I could leave it there, but if it's so egregious that it makes everyone's eyeballs burst into flames, I'll change it.

    Read the article

  • Which style of return is "better" for a method that might return None?

    - by Daenyth
    I have a method that will either return an object or None if the lookup fails. Which style of the following is better? def get_foo(needle): haystack = object_dict() if needle not in haystack: return None return haystack[needle] or, def get_foo(needle): haystack = object_dict() try: return haystack[needle] except KeyError: # Needle not found return None I'm undecided as to which is more more desirable myself. Another choice would be return haystack[needle] if needle in haystack else None, but I'm not sure that's any better.

    Read the article

  • Is GOTO really as evil as we are led to believe?

    - by RoboShop
    I'm a young programmer, so all my working life I've been told GOTO is evil, don't use it, if you do, your first born son will die. Recently, I've realized that GOTO actually still exists in .NET and I was wondering, is GOTO really as bad as they say, or is it just because everyone says you shouldn't use it, so that's why you don't. I know GOTO can be used badly, but are there any legit situations where you may possibly use it. The only thing I can think of is maybe to use GOTO to break out of a bunch of nested loops. I reckon that might be better then having to "break" out of each of them but because GOTO is supposedly always bad, I would never use it and it would probably never pass a peer review. What are your views? Is GOTO always bad? Can it sometimes be good? Has anyone here actually been gutsy enough to use GOTO for a real life system?

    Read the article

  • Resharper: how to force introducing new private fields at the bottom of the class?

    - by Igor Brejc
    Resharper offers a very useful introduce and initialize field xxx action when you specify a new parameter in a constructor like: Constructor (int parameter) The only (minor) nuisance is that it puts the new field at the beginning of the class - and I'm a fan of putting private parts as far away as possible from the prying eyes of strangers ;). If, however, you already have some private fields in the class, Resharper will put the new field "correctly" (note the quotes, I don't want to start a flame war over this issue) next to those, even if they are at the end of the class. Is there a way to force Resharper to always put new fields at the end of the class? UPDATE: OK, I forgot to mention I know about the "Type Members Layout in Options" feature, but some concrete help on how to modify the template to achieve fields placement would be nice.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between a private and public funtion?

    - by Kyle
    I am a new programmer, and I started in C and am now starting to enjoy JavaScript and a tiny bit of PHP more. Lately I've heard the terms 'private' and 'public' functions a lot. Could anybody give an explanation of the both and how they are of use to a programmer? And I'm probably totally wrong here... but is a (function(){}) in javascript a private function?

    Read the article

  • Modify columns in a data frame in R more cleanly - maybe using with() or apply()?

    - by Mittenchops
    I understand the answer in R to repetitive things is usually "apply()" rather than loop. Is there a better R-design pattern for a nasty bit of code I create frequently? So, pulling tabular data from HTML, I usually need to change the data type, and end up running something like this, to convert the first column to date format (from decimal), and columns 2-4 from character strings with comma thousand separators like "2,400,000" to numeric "2400000." X[,1] <- decYY2YY(as.numeric(X[,1])) X[,2] <- as.numeric(gsub(",", "", X[,2])) X[,3] <- as.numeric(gsub(",", "", X[,3])) X[,4] <- as.numeric(gsub(",", "", X[,4])) I don't like that I have X[,number] repeated on both the left and ride sides here, or that I have basically the same statement repeated for 2-4. Is there a very R-style way of making X[,2] less repetitive but still loop-free? Something that sort of says "apply this to columns 2,3,4---a function that reassigns the current column to a modified version in place?" I don't want to create a whole, repeatable cleaning function, really, just a quick anonymous function that does this with less repetition.

    Read the article

  • Nice way to break a reply up into pieces in ruby

    - by ChaosR
    Hello, I'm writing an IRCd. For this topic it doesn't really matter if you know much about IRC. Its a simple code style problem. Quick overview of the problem: No message may be longer than 512 characters If the message is more, it must be broken into pieces The NAMES reply sends all the nicknames of users on a channel, and quickly grows beyond 512 characters. I currently concocted this marvelous piece of code, it works perfectly. However, its just not "ruby-like". This piece of code is more what you expect in some piece of C code. # 11 is the number of all fixed characters combined in the reply pre_length = 11 + servername.length + mynick.length + channel.name.length list = [""] i = 0 channel.nicks.each do |nick, client| list[i+=1] = "" if list[i].length + nick.length + pre_length > 500 list[i] << "#{channel.mode_char(client)}#{client.nick} " end list.each { |l| send_numeric(RPL_NAMREPLY, channel.name, l.strip) } send_numeric(RPL_ENDOFNAMES, channel.name) So my question is, any ideas to do this more nicely? PS. code has been slightly modified to make it easier to understand out-of-context

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to avoid try...catch...finally... in my unit tests?

    - by Bruce Li
    I'm writing many unit tests in VS 2010 with Microsoft Test. In each test class I have many test methods similar to below: [TestMethod] public void This_is_a_Test() { try { // do some test here // assert } catch (Exception ex) { // test failed, log error message in my log file and make the test fail } finally { // do some cleanup with different parameters } } When each test method looks like this I fell it's kind of ugly. But so far I haven't found a good solution to make my test code more clean, especially the cleanup code in the finally block. Could someone here give me some advices on this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • Python - what's your conventions to declare your attributes in a class ?

    - by SeyZ
    Hello, In Python, I can declare attributes all over the class. For example : class Foo: def __init__(self): self.a = 0 def foo(self): self.b = 0 It's difficult to retrieve all attributes in my class when I have a big class with a lot of attributes. Is it better to have the following code (a) or the next following code (b) : a) Here, it's difficult to locate all attributes : class Foo: def __init__(self): foo_1() foo_2() def foo_1(self): self.a = 0 self.b = 0 def foo_2(self): self.c = 0 b) Here, it's easy to locate all attributes but is it beautiful ? class Foo: def __init__(self): (self.a, self.b) = foo_1() self.c = foo_2() def foo_1(self): a = 0 b = 0 return (a, b) def foo_2(self): c = 0 return c In a nutshell, what is your conventions to declare your attributes in a class ?

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Factory vs instance 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

  • What reasons are there to place member functions before member variables or vice/versa?

    - by Cory Klein
    Given a class, what reasoning is there for either of the two following code styles? Style A: class Foo { private: doWork(); int bar; } Style B: class Foo { private: int bar; doWork(); } For me, they are a tie. I like Style A because the member variables feel more fine-grained, and thus would appear past the more general member functions. However, I also like Style B, because the member variables seem to determine, in a OOP-style way, what the class is representing. Are there other things worth considering when choosing between these two styles?

    Read the article

  • Pyjamas import statements

    - by Gordon Worley
    I'm starting to use Pyjamas and I'm running into some annoyances. I have to import a lot of stuff to make a script work well. For example, to make a button I need to first from pyjamas.ui.Button import Button and then I can use Button. Note that import pyjamas.ui.Button and then using Button.Button doesn't work (results in errors when you build to JavaScript, at least in 0.7pre1). Does anyone have a better example of a good way to do the import statements in Pyjamas than what the Pyjamas folks have on their site? Doing things their way is possible, but ugly and overly complicated from my perspective, especially when you want to use a dozen or more ui components.

    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 | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >