Search Results

Search found 15316 results on 613 pages for 'coding style'.

Page 78/613 | < Previous Page | 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Should .net comments start with a capital letter and end with a period?

    - by Hamish Grubijan
    Depending on the feedback I get, I might raise this "standard" with my colleagues. This might become a custom StyleCop rule. is there one written already? So, Stylecop already dictates this for summary, param, and return documentation tags. Do you think it makes sense to demand the same from comments? On related note: if a comment is already long, then should it be written as a proper sentence? For example (perhaps I tried too hard to illustrate a bad comment): //if exception quit vs. // If an exception occurred, then quit. If figured - most of the time, if one bothers to write a comment, then it might as well be informative. Consider these two samples: //if exception quit if (exc != null) { Application.Exit(-1); } and // If an exception occurred, then quit. if (exc != null) { Application.Exit(-1); } Arguably, one does not need a comment at all, but since one is provided, I would think that the second one is better. Please back up your opinion. Do you have a good reference for the art of commenting, particularly if it relates to .Net? Thanks.

    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

  • C#: Union of two ICollections? (equivlaent of Java's addAll())

    - by Rosarch
    I have two ICollections of which I would like to take the union. Currently, I'm doing this with a foreach loop, but that feels verbose and hideous. What is the C# equivalent of Java's addAll()? Example of this problem: ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> result = new HashSet<IDictionary<string, string>>(); // ... ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> fromSubTree = GetAllTypeWithin(elementName, element); foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in fromSubTree) // hacky { result.Add(dict); } // result is now the union of the two sets

    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

  • 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

  • codingstyle "blanking after open and before close brackets"

    - by Oops
    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 edit: two cons, any pros out there?

    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

  • 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

  • CSS styles gone after Ajax call in IE 7

    - by roman m
    I've had a problem with my styles not being applied after AJAX calls. My styles were not in the < HEAD section of the page, and they were only recognized by IE on initial Page_Load. If you know of any other ways to fix this problem, post them here. This is more of a reference, hope this helps some people.

    Read the article

  • Circular increment: Which is "better"?

    - by Helper Method
    When you have a circular buffer represented as an array, and you need the index to wraparound (i.e., when you reach the highest possible index and increment it), is it "better" to: return (i++ == buffer.length) ? 0: i; Or return i++ % buffer.length; Has using the modulo operator any drawbacks? Is it less readable than the first solution?

    Read the article

  • Ternary operator or chosing from two arrays with the boolean as index

    - by ajax333221
    Which of these lines is more understandable, faster jsPerf, easier to maintain?: arr = bol ? [[-2,1],[-1,2]] : [[-1,0],[-1,1]]; //or arr = [[[-1,0],[-1,1]], [[-2,1],[-1,2]]][bol*1]; I usually write code for computers (not for humans), but this is starting to be a problem when I am not the only one maintaining the code and work for a team. I am unsure, the first example looks neat but are two different arrays, and the second is a single array and seem to transmit what is being done easier. I also considered using an if-else, but I don't like the idea of writing two arr = .... Or are there better options? I need serious guidance, I have never worried about others seeing my code.

    Read the article

  • Variable pre-fixes, Visual Studio 2010 onwards?

    - by thedixon
    I'm a bit bewildered on this subject, as I relate variable prefixes to being a thing of the past now, but with Visual Studio 2010 onwards (I'm currently using 2012), do people still do this and why? I only ask because, these days, you can hover over any variable and it'll tell you the variable type and scope. There's literally no requirement for pre-fixing being there for readability. By this I mean: string strHello int intHello etc. And I'm being language/tool biased here - as Visual Studio takes a lot of the legwork out for you in terms of seeing exactly what type the variable is, including after conversions in the code. This is not a "general programming" question.

    Read the article

  • Are python list comprehensions always a good programming practice?

    - by dln385
    To make the question clear, I'll use a specific example. I have a list of college courses, and each course has a few fields (all of which are strings). The user gives me a string of search terms, and I return a list of courses that match all of the search terms. This can be done in a single list comprehension or a few nested for loops. Here's the implementation. First, the Course class: class Course: def __init__(self, date, title, instructor, ID, description, instructorDescription, *args): self.date = date self.title = title self.instructor = instructor self.ID = ID self.description = description self.instructorDescription = instructorDescription self.misc = args Every field is a string, except misc, which is a list of strings. Here's the search as a single list comprehension. courses is the list of courses, and query is the string of search terms, for example "history project". def searchCourses(courses, query): terms = query.lower().strip().split() return tuple(course for course in courses if all( term in course.date.lower() or term in course.title.lower() or term in course.instructor.lower() or term in course.ID.lower() or term in course.description.lower() or term in course.instructorDescription.lower() or any(term in item.lower() for item in course.misc) for term in terms)) You'll notice that a complex list comprehension is difficult to read. I implemented the same logic as nested for loops, and created this alternative: def searchCourses2(courses, query): terms = query.lower().strip().split() results = [] for course in courses: for term in terms: if (term in course.date.lower() or term in course.title.lower() or term in course.instructor.lower() or term in course.ID.lower() or term in course.description.lower() or term in course.instructorDescription.lower()): break for item in course.misc: if term in item.lower(): break else: continue break else: continue results.append(course) return tuple(results) That logic can be hard to follow too. I have verified that both methods return the correct results. Both methods are nearly equivalent in speed, except in some cases. I ran some tests with timeit, and found that the former is three times faster when the user searches for multiple uncommon terms, while the latter is three times faster when the user searches for multiple common terms. Still, this is not a big enough difference to make me worry. So my question is this: which is better? Are list comprehensions always the way to go, or should complicated statements be handled with nested for loops? Or is there a better solution altogether?

    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

  • How to explain to a developer that adding extra if - else if conditions is not a good way to "improv

    - by Lilit
    Recently I've bumped into the following C++ code: if (a) { f(); } else if (b) { f(); } else if (c) { f(); } Where a, b and c are all different conditions, and they are not very short. I tried to change the code to: if (a || b || c) { f(); } But the author opposed saying that my change will decrease readability of the code. I had two arguments: 1) You should not increase readability by replacing one branching statement with three (though I really doubt that it's possible to make code more readable by using else if instead of ||). 2) It's not the fastest code, and no compiler will optimize this. But my arguments did not convince him. What would you tell a programmer writing such a code? Do you think complex condition is an excuse for using else if instead of OR?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  | Next Page >