Search Results

Search found 12182 results on 488 pages for 'ipod style'.

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 70/488 | < Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >

  • Python: When passing variables between methods, is it necessary to assign it a new name?

    - by Anthony
    I'm thinking that the answer is probably 'no' if the program is small and there are a lot of methods, but what about in a larger program? If I am going to be using one variable in multiple methods throughout the program, is it smarter to: Come up with a different phrasing for each method (to eliminate naming conflicts). Use the same name for each method (to eliminate confusion) Just use a global variable (to eliminate both) This is more of a stylistic question than anything else. What naming convention do YOU use when passing variables?

    Read the article

  • is there any programming language that can bring together edit and compile / run ???

    - by Aff
    When I code, I always write little pieces of unit, and compile it often. This helps me to make sure that everything run correctly, but it's very time consumed. is there any programming language that can support us to do coding and running at the same time side by side ? i mean as soon as a key press leads to valid code, the effect of the edit is incorporated into the executing program.

    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

  • 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

  • please help me to find Bug in my Code (segmentation fault)

    - by Vikramaditya Battina
    i am tring to solve this http://www.spoj.com/problems/LEXISORT/ question it working fine in visual studio compiler and IDEone also but when i running in SPOJ compiler it is getting SEGSIGV error Here my code goes #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> #include<string.h> char *getString(); void lexisort(char **str,int num); void countsort(char **str,int i,int num); int main() { int num_test; int num_strings; char **str; int i,j; scanf("%d",&num_test); for(i=0;i<num_test;i++) { scanf("%d",&num_strings); str=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { str[j]=(char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*11); scanf("%s",str[j]); } lexisort(str,num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { printf("%s\n",str[j]); free(str[j]); } free(str); } return 0; } void lexisort(char **str,int num) { int i; for(i=9;i>=0;i--) { countsort(str,i,num); } } void countsort(char **str,int i,int num) { int buff[52]={0,0},k,x; char **temp=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num); for(k=0;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=0; } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]++; } else { buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]++; } } for(k=1;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=buff[k]+buff[k-1]; } for(k=num-1;k>=0;k--) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { x=buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]--; } else { x=buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]--; } } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { str[k]=temp[k]; } free(temp); }

    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

  • A good way to implement useable Callbacks in C++

    - by Marcel J.
    I have a custom Menu class written in C++. To seperate the code into easy-to-read functions I am using Callbacks. Since I don't want to use Singletons for the Host of the Menu I provide another parameter (target) which will be given to the callback as the first parameter (some kind of workaround for the missing "this" reference). Registration-Signature AddItem(string s, void(*callback)(void*,MenuItem*), void* target = NULL) Example of a Registration menu->AddItem(TRANSLATE, "translate", &MyApp::OnModeSelected); Example of a Handler /* static */ void MyApp::OnModeSelected(void* that, MenuItem* item) { MyApp *self = (MyApp*)that; self->activeMode = item->text; } Is there anything one could consider dirty with this approach? Are there maybe better ones?

    Read the article

  • Is there a downside to adding an anonymous empty delegate on event declaration?

    - by serg10
    I have seen a few mentions of this idiom (including on SO): // Deliberately empty subscriber public event EventHandler AskQuestion = delegate {}; The upside is clear - it avoids the need to check for null before raising the event. However, I am keen to understand if there are any downsides. For example, is it something that is in widespread use and is transparent enough that it won't cause a maintenance headache? Is there any appreciable performance hit of the empty event subscriber call?

    Read the article

  • How to convince a colleague that code duplication is bad?

    - by vitaut
    A colleague of mine was implementing a new feature in a project we work on together and he did it by taking a file containing the implementation of a similar feature from the same project, creating a copy of it renaming all the global declarations and slightly modifying the implementation. So we ended up with two large files that are almost identical apart from renaming. I tried to explain that it makes our project more difficult to maintain but he doesn't want to change anything saying that it is easier for him to program in such way and that there is no reason to fix the code if it "ain't broke". How can I convince him that such code duplication is a bad thing? It is related to this questions, but I am more interested in the answers targeted to a technical person (another programmer), for example a reference to an authoritative source like a book would be great. I have already tried simple arguments and haven't succeeded.

    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

  • 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

  • Redundant code constructs

    - by Diomidis Spinellis
    The most egregiously redundant code construct I often see involves using the code sequence if (condition) return true; else return false; instead of simply writing return (condition); I've seen this beginner error in all sorts of languages: from Pascal and C to PHP and Java. What other such constructs would you flag in a code review?

    Read the article

  • 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# coding standards for private member variables [closed]

    - by Sasha
    I saw two common approaches for coding standards for private member variables: class Foo { private int _i; private string _id; } and class Foo { private int m_i; private string m_id; } I believe the latter is coming from C++. Also, many people specify type before the member variable: double m_dVal -- to indicate that is is a nonconstant member variable of the type double? What are the conventions in C#?

    Read the article

  • How to remove the shadow from a librarystack

    - by red-X
    I'm currently in a project where I need a LibraryStack with no visuals at all, so it would just show the content. If I just remove the background a shadow stays in view which I cant seem to remove... This code looks like: <s:LibraryStack Background="Transparent"> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="AliceBlue"/> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="Bisque"/> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="Salmon"/> </s:LibraryStack> This stack is just for explaining purposes, the actual stack is added in the code behind in c#. So preferably any answers that would be usefull to add in c#.

    Read the article

  • best practice when referring to a program's name in C

    - by guest
    what is considered best practice when referring to a program's name? i've seen #define PROGRAM_NAME "myprog" printf("this is %s\n", PROGRAM_NAME); as well as printf("this is %s\n", argv[0]); i know, that the second approach will give me ./myprog rather than myprog when the program is not called from $PATH and that the first approach will guarantee consistence regarding the program's name. but is there anything else, that makes one approach superior to the other?

    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

  • Enum.TryParse with Flags attribute

    - by Sunny
    I have written code to TryParse enum either by value or by its name as shown below. How can I extend this code to include parsing enums with Flags attribute? public static bool TryParse<T>(this T enum_type, object value, out T result) where T : struct { return enum_type.TryParse<T>(value, true, out result); } public static bool TryParse<T>(this T enum_type, object value, bool ignoreCase, out T result) where T : struct { result = default(T); var is_converted = false; var is_valid_value_for_conversion = new Func<T, object, bool, bool>[]{ (e, v, i) => e.GetType().IsEnum, (e, v, i) => value != null, (e, v, i) => Enum.GetNames(e.GetType()).Any(n => String.Compare(n, v.ToString(), i) == 0) || Enum.IsDefined(e.GetType(), v) }; if(is_valid_value_for_conversion.All(rule => rule(enum_type, value, ignoreCase))){ result = (T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), value.ToString(), ignoreCase); is_converted = true; } return is_converted; } Currently this code works for the following enums: enum SomeEnum{ A, B, C } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' enum SomeEnum1 : int { A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' or 1 or "1" Does not work for: [Flags] enum SomeEnum2 { A = 1, B = 2, C = 4 } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' // cannot parse for A|B Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Number of characters recommended for a statement

    - by liaK
    Hi, I have been using Qt 4.5 and so do C++. I have been told that it's a standard practice to maintain the length of each statement in the application to 80 characters. Even in Qt creator we can make a right border visible so that we can know whether we are crossing the 80 characters limit. But my question is, Is it really a standard being followed? Because in my application, I use indenting and all, so it's quite common that I cross the boundary. Other cases include, there might be a error statement which will be a bit explanatory one and which is in an inner block of code, so it too will cross the boundary. Usually my variable names look bit lengthier so as to make the names meaningful. When I call the functions of the variable names, again I will cross. Function names will not be in fewer characters either. I agree a horizontal scroll bar shows up and it's quite annoying to move back and forth. So, for function calls including multiple arguments, when the boundary is reached I will make the forth coming arguments in the new line. But besides that, for a single statement (for e.g a very long error message which is in double quotes " " or like longfun1()->longfun2()->...) if I use an \ and split into multiple lines, the readability becomes very poor. So is it a good practice to have those statement length restrictions? If this restriction in statement has to be followed? I don't think it depends on a specific language anyway. I added C++ and Qt tags since if it might. Any pointers regarding this are welcome.

    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 | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >