Search Results

Search found 12067 results on 483 pages for 'cascading style sheets'.

Page 61/483 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

  • Css attribute selector for input type="button" not working on IE7

    - by Cesar Lopez
    Hi all, I am working on a big form and it contains a lot of buttons all over the form, therefore I am trying to get working input[type="button"] in my main css file so it would catch all buttons with out having to add a class to every single one, for some reason this is not working on IE7, after checking on the web it says that IE7 should be supporting this. Also it has to be type="button" and not type="submit" as not all buttons will submit the form. Could anybody give a hint what am I doing wrong? input[type="button"]{ text-align:center; } I have also tried input[type=button] Any help would be very much apreciated.

    Read the article

  • special debugging lines (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • Use continue or Checked Exceptions when checking and processing objects

    - by Johan Pelgrim
    I'm processing, let's say a list of "Document" objects. Before I record the processing of the document successful I first want to check a couple of things. Let's say, the file referring to the document should be present and something in the document should be present. Just two simple checks for the example but think about 8 more checks before I have successfully processed my document. What would have your preference? for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { if (!fileIsPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("File is not present"); continue; } if (!isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("Something is not in the document"); continue; } doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } Or for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { try { fileIsPresent(document); isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document); doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } catch (ProcessingException e) { doSomethingWithTheExceptionalCase(e.getMessage()); } } public boolean fileIsPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("File is not present"); } public boolean isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("Something is not in the document"); } What is more readable. What is best? Is there even a better approach of doing this (maybe using a design pattern of some sort)? As far as readability goes my preference currently is the Exception variant... What is yours?

    Read the article

  • How do you assign a variable with the result of a if..else block?

    - by Pierre Olivier Martel
    I had an argument with a colleague about the best way to assign a variable in an if..else block. His orignal code was : @products = if params[:category] Category.find(params[:category]).products else Product.all end I rewrote it this way : if params[:category] @products = Category.find(params[:category]).products else @products = Product.all end This could also be rewritten with a one-liner using a ternery operator (? :) but let's pretend that product assignment was longer than a 100 character and couldn't fit in one line. Which of the two is clearer to you? The first solution takes a little less space but I thought that declaring a variable and assigning it three lines after can be more error prone. I also like to see my if and else aligned, makes it easier for my brain to parse it!

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

    - by Art
    While it is recommended to use the following construct to check whether request is POST, if request.method == 'POST': pass It is likely that people will find if request.POST: pass to be more elegant and concise. Are there any reasons not to use it, apart from personal preference?

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • Safest way to change variable names in a project

    - by kamziro
    So I've been working on a relatively large project by myself, and I've come to realise that some of the variable names earlier on were.. less than ideal. But how does one change variable names in a project easily? Is there such a tool that can go through a project directory, parse all the files, and then replace the variable names to the desired one? It has to be smart enough to understand the language I imagine. I was thinking of using regexp (sed/awk on linux?) tools to just replace the variable name, but there were many times where my particular variable is also included as a part of strings. There's also the issue about changing stuff on a c++ namespace, because there is actually two classes in my project that share the same name, but are in different namespaces. I remember visual stuio being able to do this, but what's the safest and most elegant way to do this on linux?

    Read the article

  • What does 'foo' really mean?

    - by Prakash
    I hope this qualifies as a programming question, as in any programming tutorial, you eventually come across 'foo' in the code examples. (yeah, right?) what does 'foo' really mean? If it is meant to mean nothing, when did it begin to be used so? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Vim 80 column layout concerns

    - by cdleary
    I feel like the way I do 80-column indication in Vim is incorrect: set columns=80. At times I also set textwidth but I like to be able to see and anticipate line overflow with the set columns alternative. This has some unfortunate side effects -- I can't set number for fear of splitting between files that have different orders of line numbers; i.e. < 100 line files and = 100 line files will require two different set columns values because of the extra column used for the additional digit display. I also start new (g)Vim sessions instead of splitting windows vertically, which forces me to use the window manager's clipboard -- vsplits force me to do set columns every time I open or close a pane, so starting a new session is less hassle. How do you handle the 80-character indication when you want to set numbers, vertically split, etc.?

    Read the article

  • C#: Get a list of every value for a given key in a set of dictionaries?

    - by Rosarch
    How can I write this code more cleanly/concisely? /// <summary> /// Creates a set of valid URIs. /// </summary> /// <param name="levelVariantURIDicts">A collection of dictionaries of the form: /// dict["filePath"] == theFilePath </param> /// <returns></returns> private ICollection<string> URIsOfDicts(ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> levelVariantURIDicts) { ICollection<string> result = new HashSet<string>(); foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in levelVariantURIDicts) { result.Add(dict["filePath"]); } return result; }

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to use whitespace while programming?

    - by Emmanuel Smith
    I'm fairly new to programming and from learning I have seen different ways of formatting code, comments, etc; and have been recommended on different techniques. I mostly program in C#, C++, and Java so I want to know what is the the best way to layout code so that if other people where to go through it, they would be impressed by how simple and easy to understand it is. I would like to know the same thing for commenting as well.

    Read the article

  • Should a connect method return a value?

    - by Matt S
    I was looking at some code I've inherited and I couldn't decided if I like a bit of code. Basically, there is a method that looks like the following: bool Connect(connection parameters){...} It returns true if it connects successfully, false otherwise. I've written code like that in the past, but now, when I see this method I don't like it for a number of reasons. Its easy to write code that just ignores the returned value, or not realize it returns a value. There is no way to return an error message. Checking the return of the method doesn't really look nice: if (!Connect(...)){....} I could rewrite code to throw an exception when it doesn't successfully connect, but I don't consider that an exceptional situation. Instead I'm thinking of refactoring the code as follows: void Connect(Connection Parameters, out bool successful, out string errorMessage){...} I like that other developers have to provide the success and error strings so they know the method has error conditions and I can know return a message Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks -Matt

    Read the article

  • why those chinese indent code so differently?

    - by winston
    currently i am working with some programmer from shanghai i notice they have some coding indentation like these: if(1==1 && 2==2) { a = 3; } else { b = 4; } however i am accustomed to: if (1==1 && 2==2) { a = 3; } else { b = 4; } what do you think? how could i get rid of different coding styles within a single program file?

    Read the article

  • In Java it seems Public constructors are always a bad coding practice

    - by Adam Gent
    This maybe a controversial question and may not be suited for this forum (so I will not be insulted if you choose to close this question). It seems given the current capabilities of Java there is no reason to make constructors public ... ever. Friendly, private, protected are OK but public no. It seems that its almost always a better idea to provide a public static method for creating objects. Every Java Bean serialization technology (JAXB, Jackson, Spring etc...) can call a protected or private no-arg constructor. My questions are: I have never seen this practice decreed or written down anywhere? Maybe Bloch mentions it but I don't own is book. Is there a use case other than perhaps not being super DRY that I missed? EDIT: I explain why static methods are better. .1. For one you get better type inference. For example See Guava's http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/CollectionUtilitiesExplained .2. As a designer of the class you can later change what is returned with a static method. .3. Dealing with constructor inheritance is painful especially if you have to pre-calculate something.

    Read the article

  • Are there any reasons to make all fields and variables final?

    - by Roman
    In my current project I noticed that all class fields and variable inside methods are declared with final modifier whenever it's possible. Just like here: private final XMLStreamWriter _xmlStreamWriter; private final Marshaller _marshaller; private final OutputStream _documentStream; private final OutputStream _stylesStream; private final XMLStreamWriter _stylesStreamWriter; private final StyleMerger _styleMerger; public DocumentWriter(PhysicalPackage physicalPackage) throws IOException { final Package pkg = new Package(physicalPackage); final Part wordDocumentPart = pkg.createPart( "/word/document.xml", "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document.main+xml", "http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships/officeDocument"); // styles.xml final Pair<Part, String> wordStylesPart = wordDocumentPart.createRelatedPart(...); ... } Are there any reasons to do so? p.s. As I know project is not supposed to be multithreaded (at least I've heard nothing about it).

    Read the article

  • Who likes #regions in Visual Studio?

    - by Nicholas
    Personally I can't stand region tags, but clearly they have wide spread appeal for organizing code, so I want to test the temperature of the water for other MS developer's take on this idea. My personal feeling is that any sort of silly trick to simplify code only acts to encourage terrible coding behavior, like lack of cohesion, unclear intention and poor or incomplete coding standards. One programmer told me that code regions helped encourage coding standards by making it clear where another programmer should put his or her contributions. But, to be blunt, this sounds like a load of horse manure to me. If you have a standard, it is the programmer's job to understand what that standard is... you should't need to define it in every single class file. And, nothing is more annoying than having all of your code collapsed when you open a file. I know that cntrl + M, L will open everything up, but then you have the hideous "hash region definition" open and closing lines to read. They're just irritating. My most stead fast coding philosophy is that all programmer should strive to create clear, concise and cohesive code. Region tags just serve to create noise and redundant intentions. Region tags would be moot in a well thought out and intentioned class. The only place they seem to make sense to me, is in automatically generated code, because you should never have to read that outside of personal curiosity.

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on try-catch blocks

    - by John Boker
    What are your thoughts on code that looks like this: public void doSomething() { try { // actual code goes here } catch (Exception ex) { throw; } } The problem I see is the actual error is not handled, just throwing the exception in a different place. I find it more difficult to debug because i don't get a line number where the actual problem is. So my question is why would this be good? ---- EDIT ---- From the answers it looks like most people are saying it's pointless to do this with no custom or specific exceptions being caught. That's what i wanted comments on, when no specific exception is being caught. I can see the point of actually doing something with a caught exception, just not the way this code is.

    Read the article

  • Does CSS have a "start over" feature?

    - by Rick Wayne
    I'm using calendar_date_select (henceforth CDS) in a Rails application, and have a stupid question. When I embed the CDS component in the middle of an already-CSS-styled page, all manner of things go ugly-wrong with it (spacing, fonts, etc.). Clearly the elements inside the CDS have inherited unwanted stuff from the styles already working in the containing page. Now, I could use a combination of, say, Safari's CSS debugging and analyze what's wrong element-by-element. But that's (A) tedious, and (B) might load up my component's styles with tons of container-defeating special cases. If nothing else, I'm certain to change the containing page's styles in the future and would have to maintain the special cases. My question: Is is possible to have a DIV in a page that essentially backs out all the existing styling? Is there a simple one-liner that will do this? Failing that, can it be done on an element-by-element basis? E.g. I know what tags the CDS generates, so I could list each of them: { p: "#--NOTHING--#"; a: "#--NOTHING--#"; } where #--NOTHING--# is the Magic Turn Off All Inherited Styles incantation. http://code.google.com/p/calendardateselect/ Thanks, peeps.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >