Search Results

Search found 11672 results on 467 pages for 'formal methods'.

Page 1/467 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • F# Extention Methods on Lists, IEnumberable, etc

    - by flevine100
    I have searched StackOverflow (and other sources) for this answer, but can't seem to find anything. In C#, if I had a widget definition, say: class widget { public string PrettyName() { ... do stuff here } } and I wanted to allow for easy printing of a list of Widgets, I might do this: namespace ExtensionMethods { public static PrintAll( this IEnumerable<Widget> widgets, TextWriter writer ) { foreach(var w in widgets) { writer.WriteLine( w.PrettyName() ) } } } How would I accomplish something similar with a record type and a collection (List or Seq preferrably in F#). I'd love to have a list of Widgest and be able to call a function right on the collection that did something like this. Assume (since it's F#) that the function would not be changing the state of the collection that it's attached to, but returning some new value.

    Read the article

  • Should I use formal methods on my software project?

    - by Michael
    Our client wants us to build a web-based, rich internet application for gathering software requirements. Basically it's a web-based case tool that follows a specific process for getting requirements from stakeholders. I'm the project manager and we're still in the early phases of the project. I've been thinking about using formal methods to help clarify the requirements for the tool for both my client and the developers. By formal methods I mean some form of modeling, possibly something mathematically-based. Some of the things I've read about and are considering include Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_notation), state machines, UML 2.0 (possibly with extensions such as OCL), Petri nets, and some coding-level stuff like contracts and pre and post conditions. Is there anything else I should consider? The developers are experienced but depending on the formalism used they may have to learn some math. I'm trying to determine whether it's worth while for me to use formal methods on this project and if so, to what extent. I know "it depends" so the most helpful answers for me is a yes/no and supporting arguments. Would you use formal methods if you were on this project?

    Read the article

  • Are long methods always bad?

    - by wobbily_col
    So looking around earlier I noticed some comments about long methods being bad practice. I am not sure I always agree that long methods are bad (and would like opinions from others). For example I have some Django views that do a bit of processing of the objects before sending them to the view, a long method being 350 lines of code. I have my code written so that it deals with the paramaters - sorting / filtering the queryset, then bit by bit does some processing on the objects my query has returned. So the processing is mainly conditional aggregation, that has complex enough rules it can't easily be done in the database, so I have some variables declared outside the main loop then get altered during the loop. varaible_1 = 0 variable_2 = 0 for object in queryset : if object.condition_condition_a and variable_2 > 0 : variable 1+= 1 ..... ... . more conditions to alter the variables return queryset, and context So according to the theory I should factor out all the code into smaller methods, so That I have the view method as being maximum one page long. However having worked on various code bases in the past, I sometimes find it makes the code less readable, when you need to constantly jump from one method to the next figuring out all the parts of it, while keeping the outermost method in your head. I find that having a long method that is well formatted, you can see the logic more easily, as it isn't getting hidden away in inner methods. I could factor out the code into smaller methods, but often there is is an inner loop being used for two or three things, so it would result in more complex code, or methods that don't do one thing but two or three (alternatively I could repeat inner loops for each task, but then there will be a performance hit). So is there a case that long methods are not always bad? Is there always a case for writing methods, when they will only be used in one place?

    Read the article

  • Read XML Files using LINQ to XML and Extension Methods

    - by psheriff
    In previous blog posts I have discussed how to use XML files to store data in your applications. I showed you how to read those XML files from your project and get XML from a WCF service. One of the problems with reading XML files is when elements or attributes are missing. If you try to read that missing data, then a null value is returned. This can cause a problem if you are trying to load that data into an object and a null is read. This blog post will show you how to create extension methods to detect null values and return valid values to load into your object. The XML Data An XML data file called Product.xml is located in the \Xml folder of the Silverlight sample project for this blog post. This XML file contains several rows of product data that will be used in each of the samples for this post. Each row has 4 attributes; namely ProductId, ProductName, IntroductionDate and Price. <Products>  <Product ProductId="1"           ProductName="Haystack Code Generator for .NET"           IntroductionDate="07/01/2010"  Price="799" />  <Product ProductId="2"           ProductName="ASP.Net Jumpstart Samples"           IntroductionDate="05/24/2005"  Price="0" />  ...  ...</Products> The Product Class Just as you create an Entity class to map each column in a table to a property in a class, you should do the same for an XML file too. In this case you will create a Product class with properties for each of the attributes in each element of product data. The following code listing shows the Product class. public class Product : CommonBase{  public const string XmlFile = @"Xml/Product.xml";   private string _ProductName;  private int _ProductId;  private DateTime _IntroductionDate;  private decimal _Price;   public string ProductName  {    get { return _ProductName; }    set {      if (_ProductName != value) {        _ProductName = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("ProductName");      }    }  }   public int ProductId  {    get { return _ProductId; }    set {      if (_ProductId != value) {        _ProductId = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("ProductId");      }    }  }   public DateTime IntroductionDate  {    get { return _IntroductionDate; }    set {      if (_IntroductionDate != value) {        _IntroductionDate = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("IntroductionDate");      }    }  }   public decimal Price  {    get { return _Price; }    set {      if (_Price != value) {        _Price = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("Price");      }    }  }} NOTE: The CommonBase class that the Product class inherits from simply implements the INotifyPropertyChanged event in order to inform your XAML UI of any property changes. You can see this class in the sample you download for this blog post. Reading Data When using LINQ to XML you call the Load method of the XElement class to load the XML file. Once the XML file has been loaded, you write a LINQ query to iterate over the “Product” Descendants in the XML file. The “select” portion of the LINQ query creates a new Product object for each row in the XML file. You retrieve each attribute by passing each attribute name to the Attribute() method and retrieving the data from the “Value” property. The Value property will return a null if there is no data, or will return the string value of the attribute. The Convert class is used to convert the value retrieved into the appropriate data type required by the Product class. private void LoadProducts(){  XElement xElem = null;   try  {    xElem = XElement.Load(Product.XmlFile);     // The following will NOT work if you have missing attributes    var products =         from elem in xElem.Descendants("Product")        orderby elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value        select new Product        {          ProductId = Convert.ToInt32(            elem.Attribute("ProductId").Value),          ProductName = Convert.ToString(            elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value),          IntroductionDate = Convert.ToDateTime(            elem.Attribute("IntroductionDate").Value),          Price = Convert.ToDecimal(elem.Attribute("Price").Value)        };     lstData.DataContext = products;  }  catch (Exception ex)  {    MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);  }} This is where the problem comes in. If you have any missing attributes in any of the rows in the XML file, or if the data in the ProductId or IntroductionDate is not of the appropriate type, then this code will fail! The reason? There is no built-in check to ensure that the correct type of data is contained in the XML file. This is where extension methods can come in real handy. Using Extension Methods Instead of using the Convert class to perform type conversions as you just saw, create a set of extension methods attached to the XAttribute class. These extension methods will perform null-checking and ensure that a valid value is passed back instead of an exception being thrown if there is invalid data in your XML file. private void LoadProducts(){  var xElem = XElement.Load(Product.XmlFile);   var products =       from elem in xElem.Descendants("Product")      orderby elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value      select new Product      {        ProductId = elem.Attribute("ProductId").GetAsInteger(),        ProductName = elem.Attribute("ProductName").GetAsString(),        IntroductionDate =            elem.Attribute("IntroductionDate").GetAsDateTime(),        Price = elem.Attribute("Price").GetAsDecimal()      };   lstData.DataContext = products;} Writing Extension Methods To create an extension method you will create a class with any name you like. In the code listing below is a class named XmlExtensionMethods. This listing just shows a couple of the available methods such as GetAsString and GetAsInteger. These methods are just like any other method you would write except when you pass in the parameter you prefix the type with the keyword “this”. This lets the compiler know that it should add this method to the class specified in the parameter. public static class XmlExtensionMethods{  public static string GetAsString(this XAttribute attr)  {    string ret = string.Empty;     if (attr != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(attr.Value))    {      ret = attr.Value;    }     return ret;  }   public static int GetAsInteger(this XAttribute attr)  {    int ret = 0;    int value = 0;     if (attr != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(attr.Value))    {      if(int.TryParse(attr.Value, out value))        ret = value;    }     return ret;  }   ...  ...} Each of the methods in the XmlExtensionMethods class should inspect the XAttribute to ensure it is not null and that the value in the attribute is not null. If the value is null, then a default value will be returned such as an empty string or a 0 for a numeric value. Summary Extension methods are a great way to simplify your code and provide protection to ensure problems do not occur when reading data. You will probably want to create more extension methods to handle XElement objects as well for when you use element-based XML. Feel free to extend these extension methods to accept a parameter which would be the default value if a null value is detected, or any other parameters you wish. NOTE: You can download the complete sample code at my website. http://www.pdsa.com/downloads. Choose “Tips & Tricks”, then "Read XML Files using LINQ to XML and Extension Methods" from the drop-down. Good Luck with your Coding,Paul D. Sheriff  

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that do the same thing but return different types

    - by Konstantin Ð.
    Let's assume that I'm extending a graphical file chooser class (JFileChooser). This class has methods which display the file chooser dialog and return a status signature in the form of an int: APPROVE_OPTION if the user selects a file and hits Open /Save, CANCEL_OPTION if the user hits Cancel, and ERROR_OPTION if something goes wrong. These methods are called showDialog(). I find this cumbersome, so I decide to make another method that returns a File object: in the case of APPROVE_OPTION, it returns the file selected by the user; otherwise, it returns null. This is where I run into a problem: would it be okay for me to keep the showDialog() name, even though methods with that name — and a different return type — already exist? To top it off, my method takes an additional parameter: a File which denotes in which directory the file chooser should start. My question to you: Is it okay to call a method the same name as a superclass method if they return different types? Or would that be confusing to API users? (If so, what other name could I use?) Alternatively, should I keep the name and change the return type so it matches that of the other methods? public int showDialog(Component parent, String approveButtonText) // Superclass method public File showDialog(Component parent, File location) // My method

    Read the article

  • Extension methods conflict

    - by Yochai Timmer
    Lets say I have 2 extension methods to string, in 2 different namespaces: namespace test1 { public static class MyExtensions { public static int TestMethod(this String str) { return 1; } } } namespace test2 { public static class MyExtensions2 { public static int TestMethod(this String str) { return 2; } } } These methods are just for example, they don't really do anything. Now lets consider this piece of code: using System; using test1; using test2; namespace blah { public static class Blah { public Blah() { string a = "test"; int i = a.TestMethod(); //Which one is chosen ? } } } I know that only one of the extension methods will be chosen. Which one will it be ? and why ? How can I choose a certain method from a certain namespace ? Edit: Usually I'd use Namespace.ClassNAME.Method() ... But that just beats the whole idea of extension methods. And I don't think you can use Variable.Namespace.Method()

    Read the article

  • Do private static methods in C# hurt anything?

    - by fish
    I created a private validation method for a certain validation that happens multiple times in my class (I can't store the validated data for various reasons). Now, ReSharper suggests that the function could be made static. I'm a little reluctant to do so due known problems with static methods. It would be a private static method. My question is, can private static methods cause similar coupling and testing problems like public static methods? Is it a bad practice? I would guess not, but I'm not sure if there is a pitfall here.

    Read the article

  • Can't I just use all static methods?

    - by Reddy S R
    What's the difference between the two UpdateSubject methods below? I felt using static methods is better if you just want to operate on the entities. In which situations should I go with non-static methods? public class Subject { public int Id {get; set;} public string Name { get; set; } public static bool UpdateSubject(Subject subject) { //Do something and return result return true; } public bool UpdateSubject() { //Do something on 'this' and return result return true; } } I know I will be getting many kicks from the community for this really annoying question but I could not stop myself asking it. Does this become impractical when dealing with inheritance?

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that perform HTTP GET/POST calls?

    - by antonpug
    In the application I am currently working on, there are generally 3 types of HTTP calls: pure GETs pure POSTs (updating the model with new data) "GET" POSTs (posting down an object to get some data back, no updates to the model) In the integration service, generally we name methods that post "postSomething()", and methods that get, "getSomething()". So my question is, if we have a "GET" POST, should the method be called: getSomething - seeing as the purpose is to obtain data postSomething - since we are technically using POST performSomeAction - arbitrary name that's more relevant to the action What are everyone's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Formal Languages, Inductive Proofs &amp; Regular Expressions

    - by MarkPearl
    So I am slogging away at my UNISA stuff. I have just finished doing the initial once non stop read through the first 11 chapters of my COS 201 Textbook - “Introduction to Computer Theory 2nd Edition” by Daniel Cohen. It has been an interesting couple of days, with familiar concepts coming up as well as some new territory. In this posting I am going to cover the first couple of chapters of the book. Let start with Formal Languages… What exactly is a formal language? Pretty much a no duh question for me but still a good one to ask – a formal language is a language that is defined in a precise mathematical way. Does that mean that the English language is a formal language? I would say no – and my main motivation for this is that one can have an English sentence that is correct grammatically that is also ambiguous. For example the ambiguous sentence: "I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas.” For this and possibly many other reasons that I am unaware of, English is termed a “Natural Language”. So why the importance of formal languages in computer science? Again a no duh question in my mind… If we want computers to be effective and useful tools then we need them to be able to evaluate a series of commands in some form of language that when interpreted by the device no confusion will exist as to what we were requesting. Imagine the mayhem that would exist if a computer misinterpreted a command to print a document and instead decided to delete it. So what is a Formal Language made up of… For my study purposes a language is made up of a finite alphabet. For a formal language to exist there needs to be a specification on the language that will describe whether a string of characters has membership in the language or not. There are two basic ways to do this: By a “machine” that will recognize strings of the language (e.g. Finite Automata). By a rule that describes how strings of a language can be formed (e.g. Regular Expressions). When we use the phrase “string of characters”, we can also be referring to a “word”. What is an Inductive Proof? So I am not to far into my textbook and of course it starts referring to proofs and different types. I have had to go through several different approaches of proofs in the past, but I can never remember their formal names , so when I saw “inductive proof” I thought to myself – what the heck is that? Google to the rescue… An inductive proof is like a normal proof but it employs a neat trick which allows you to prove a statement about an arbitrary number n by first proving it is true when n is 1 and then assuming it is true for n=k and showing it is true for n=k+1. The idea is that if you want to show that someone can climb to the nth floor of a fire escape, you need only show that you can climb the ladder up to the fire escape (n=1) and then show that you know how to climb the stairs from any level of the fire escape (n=k) to the next level (n=k+1). Does this sound like a form of recursion? No surprise then that in the same chapter they deal with recursive definitions. An example of a recursive definition for the language EVEN would the 3 rules below: 2 is in EVEN If x is in EVEN then so is x+2 The only elements in the set EVEN are those that be produced by the rules above. Nothing to exciting… So if a definition for a language is done recursively, then it makes sense that the language can be proved using induction. Regular Expressions So I am wondering to myself what use is this all – in fact – I find this the biggest challenge to any university material is that it is quite hard to find the immediate practical applications of some theory in real life stuff. How great was my joy when I suddenly saw the word regular expression being introduced. I had been introduced to regular expressions on Stack Overflow where I was trying to recognize if some text measurement put in by a user was in a valid form or not. For instance, the imperial system of measurement where you have feet and inches can be represented in so many different ways. I had eventually turned to regular expressions as an easy way to check if my parser could correctly parse the text or not and convert it to a normalize measurement. So some rules about languages and regular expressions… Any finite language can be represented by at least one if not more regular expressions A regular expressions is almost a rule syntax for expressing how regular languages can be formed regular expressions are cool For a regular expression to be valid for a language it must be able to generate all the words in the language and no other words. This is important. It doesn’t help me if my regular expression parses 100% of my measurement texts but also lets one or two invalid texts to pass as well. Okay, so this posting jumps around a bit – but introduces some very basic fundamentals for the subject which will be built on in later postings… Time to go and do some practical examples now…

    Read the article

  • The best way to have a pointer to several methods - critique requested

    - by user827992
    I'm starting with a short introduction of what i know from the C language: a pointer is a type that stores an adress or a NULL the * operator reads the left value of the variable on its right and use this value as address and reads the value of the variable at that address the & operator generate a pointer to the variable on its right so i was thinking that in C++ the pointers can work this way too, but i was wrong, to generate a pointer to a static method i have to do this: #include <iostream> class Foo{ public: static void dummy(void){ std::cout << "I'm dummy" << std::endl; }; }; int main(){ void (*p)(); p = Foo::dummy; // step 1 p(); p = &(Foo::dummy); // step 2 p(); p = Foo; // step 3 p->dummy(); return(0); } now i have several questions: why step 1 works why step 2 works too, looks like a "pointer to pointer" for p to me, very different from step 1 why step 3 is the only one that doesn't work and is the only one that makes some sort of sense to me, honestly how can i write an array of pointers or a pointer to pointers structure to store methods ( static or non-static from real objects ) what is the best syntax and coding style for generating a pointer to a method?

    Read the article

  • Is there a formal definiton of software quality

    - by user970696
    I am looking for a formal definition of software quality. It is my understanding that ISO 25000 is intended to provide or measure the quality of a piece of software, but it doesn't appear ready yet and I can't tell if it specifically contains such a definiton. Currently ISO 9126 did contain one such definition, but my understanding is that it is being replaced with ISO 25000. So I ask, is there are formal definition of software quality?

    Read the article

  • How can I make a career in Formal Methods programming in USA?

    - by A5al Andy
    I've found that my (USA) professors recoil with a near-disgust when I ask them about how to pursue a career in Formal Methods programming. They say, "Oh, that stuff! That stuff is anal. You don't need that European POS to get a job." I'm sure I'll get a job without it, but Formal Methods interests me so much that I bet I'd like to make a career of it. I'd like to learn about Formal Methods at an American University and then work in that field here. I've found that even professors at more important universities than mine don't seem to welcome Formal Methods. Almost all FM research project webpages are semi-abandoned and moldering. Europe is where the action seems to be for this. Can anyone suggest a plan of attack, and along the way explain the antipathy to Formal Methods in the US? I'm a sophomore at a public university in the South.

    Read the article

  • Prefer extension methods for encapsulation and reusability?

    - by tzaman
    edit4: wikified, since this seems to have morphed more into a discussion than a specific question. In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. (edit: Even in the current .NET library, I can see places where it would've been useful to have extensions instead of instance methods - for example, all of the utility functions of List<T> (Sort, BinarySearch, FindIndex, etc.) would be incredibly useful if they were lifted up to IList<T> - getting free bonus functionality like that adds a lot more benefit to implementing the interface.) So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself? (edit2: In response to Tomas - while C# did start out with Java's (overly, imo) OO mentality, it seems to be embracing more multi-paradigm programming with every new release; the main thrust of this question is whether using extension methods to drive a style change (towards more generic / functional C#) is useful or worthwhile..) edit3: overridable extension methods The only real problem identified so far with this approach, is that you can't specialize extension methods if you need to. I've been thinking about the issue, and I think I've come up with a solution. Suppose I have an interface MyInterface, which I want to extend - I define my extension methods in a MyExtension static class, and pair it with another interface, call it MyExtensionOverrider. MyExtension methods are defined according to this pattern: public static int MyMethod(this MyInterface obj, int arg, bool attemptCast=true) { if (attemptCast && obj is MyExtensionOverrider) { return ((MyExtensionOverrider)obj).MyMethod(arg); } // regular implementation here } The override interface mirrors all of the methods defined in MyExtension, except without the this or attemptCast parameters: public interface MyExtensionOverrider { int MyMethod(int arg); string MyOtherMethod(); } Now, any class can implement the interface and get the default extension functionality: public class MyClass : MyInterface { ... } Anyone that wants to override it with specific implementations can additionally implement the override interface: public class MySpecializedClass : MyInterface, MyExtensionOverrider { public int MyMethod(int arg) { //specialized implementation for one method } public string MyOtherMethod() { // fallback to default for others MyExtension.MyOtherMethod(this, attemptCast: false); } } And there we go: extension methods provided on an interface, with the option of complete extensibility if needed. Fully general too, the interface itself doesn't need to know about the extension / override, and multiple extension / override pairs can be implemented without interfering with each other. I can see three problems with this approach - It's a little bit fragile - the extension methods and override interface have to be kept synchronized manually. It's a little bit ugly - implementing the override interface involves boilerplate for every function you don't want to specialize. It's a little bit slow - there's an extra bool comparison and cast attempt added to the mainline of every method. Still, all those notwithstanding, I think this is the best we can get until there's language support for interface functions. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Formal definition for term "pure OO language"?

    - by Yauhen Yakimovich
    I can't think of a better place among SO siblings to pose such a question. Originally I wanted to ask "Is python a pure OO language?" but considering troubles and some sort of discomfort people experience while trying to define the term I decided to start with obtaining a clear definition for the term itself. It would be rather fair to start with correspondence by Dr. Alan Kay, who has coined the term (note the inspiration in biological analogy to cells or other living objects). There are following ways to approach the task: Give a comparative analysis by listing programming languages that exhibits certain properties unique and sufficient to define the term (although Smalltalk and Java are passing examples but IMO this way seems neither really complete or nor fruitful) Give a formal definition (or close to it, e.g. in more academic or mathematical style). Give a philosophical definition that would totally rely on semantical context of concrete language or a priori programming experience (there must be some chance of successful explanation by the community). My current version: "If a certain programing (formal) language that can (grammatically) differentiate between operations and operands as well as infer about the type of each operand whether this type is an object (in sense of OOP) or not then we call such a language an OO-language as long as there is at least one type in this language which is an object. Finally, if all types of the language are also objects we define such language to be pure OO-language." Would appreciate any possible improvement of it. As you can see I just made the definition dependent on the term "object" (often fully referenced as class of objects).

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on C# Extension Methods

    - by Damon
    I'm not a huge fan of extension methods.  When they first came out, I remember seeing a method on an object that was fairly useful, but when I went to use it another piece of code that method wasn't available.  Turns out it was an extension method and I hadn't included the appropriate assembly and imports statement in my code to use it.  I remember being a bit confused at first about how the heck that could happen (hey, extension methods were new, cut me some slack) and it took a bit of time to track down exactly what it was that I needed to include to get that method back.  I just imagined a new developer trying to figure out why a method was missing and fruitlessly searching on MSDN for a method that didn't exist and it just didn't sit well with me. I am of the opinion that if you have an object, then you shouldn't have to include additional assemblies to get additional instance level methods out of that object.  That opinion applies to namespaces as well - I do not like it when the contents of a namespace are split out into multiple assemblies.  I prefer to have static utility classes instead of extension methods to keep things nicely packaged into a cohesive unit.  It also makes it abundantly clear where utility methods are used in code.  I will concede, however, that it can make code a bit more verbose and lengthy.  There is always a trade-off. Some people harp on extension methods because it breaks the tenants of object oriented development and allows you to add methods to sealed classes.  Whatever.  Extension methods are just utility methods that you can tack onto an object after the fact.  Extension methods do not give you any more access to an object than the developer of that object allows, so I say that those who cry OO foul on extension methods really don't have much of an argument on which to stand.  In fact, I have to concede that my dislike of them is really more about style than anything of great substance. One interesting thing that I found regarding extension methods is that you can call them on null objects. Take a look at this extension method: namespace ExtensionMethods {   public static class StringUtility   {     public static int WordCount(this string str)     {       if(str == null) return 0;       return str.Split(new char[] { ' ', '.', '?' },         StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries).Length;     }   }   } Notice that the extension method checks to see if the incoming string parameter is null.  I was worried that the runtime would perform a check on the object instance to make sure it was not null before calling an extension method, but that is apparently not the case.  So, if you call the following code it runs just fine. string s = null; int words = s.WordCount(); I am a big fan of things working, but this seems to go against everything I've come to know about instance level methods.  However, an extension method is really a static method masquerading as an instance-level method, so I suppose it would be far more frustrating if it failed since there is really no reason it shouldn't succeed. Although I'm not a fan of extension methods, I will say that if you ever find yourself at an impasse with a die-hard fan of either the utility class or extension method approach, then there is a common ground.  Extension methods are defined in static classes, and you call them from those static classes as well as directly from the objects they extend.  So if you build your utility classes using extension methods, then you can have it your way and they can have it theirs. 

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • Purpose of Instance Methods vs. Class Methods in Objective-C

    - by qegal
    I have checked out all these questions... Difference Class and Instance Methods Difference between class methods and instance methods? Objective-C: Class vs Instance Methods? ...and all they explain is how instance methods are used on instances of a class and class methods are used with the class name, when a message is sent to a class object. This is helpful, but I'm curious to know why one would use a class method vs. an instance method. I'm fairly new to iOS application development, and usually use class methods, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. Thanks in advanced!

    Read the article

  • evaluating cost/benefits of using extension methods in C# => 3.0

    - by BillW
    Hi, In what circumstances (usage scenarios) would you choose to write an extension rather than sub-classing an object ? < full disclosure : I am not an MS employee; I do not know Mitsu Furota personally; I do know the author of the open-source Componax library mentioned here, but I have no business dealings with him whatsoever; I am not creating, or planning to create any commercial product using extensions : in sum : this post is from pure intellectal curiousity related to my trying to (continually) become aware of "best practices" I find the idea of extension methods "cool," and obviously you can do "far-out" things with them as in the many examples you can in Mitsu Furota's (MS) blog postslink text. A personal friend wrote the open-source Componax librarylink text, and there's some remarkable facilities in there; but he is in complete command of his small company with total control over code guidelines, and every line of code "passes through his hands." While this is speculation on my part : I think/guess other issues might come into play in a medium-to-large software team situation re use of Extensions. Looking at MS's guidelines at link text, you find : In general, you will probably be calling extension methods far more often than implementing your own. ... In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. Whenever possible, client code that must extend an existing type should do so by creating a new type derived from the existing type. For more information, see Inheritance (C# Programming Guide). ... When the compiler encounters a method invocation, it first looks for a match in the type's instance methods. If no match is found, it will search for any extension methods that are defined for the type, and bind to the first extension method that it finds. And at Ms's link text : Extension methods present no specific security vulnerabilities. They can never be used to impersonate existing methods on a type, because all name collisions are resolved in favor of the instance or static method defined by the type itself. Extension methods cannot access any private data in the extended class. Factors that seem obvious to me would include : I assume you would not write an extension unless you expected it be used very generally and very frequently. On the other hand : couldn't you say the same thing about sub-classing ? Knowing we can compile them into a seperate dll, and add the compiled dll, and reference it, and then use the extensions : is "cool," but does that "balance out" the cost inherent in the compiler first having to check to see if instance methods are defined as described above. Or the cost, in case of a "name clash," of using the Static invocation methods to make sure your extension is invoked rather than the instance definition ? How frequent use of Extensions would affect run-time performance or memory use : I have no idea. So, I'd appreciate your thoughts, or knowing about how/when you do, or don't do, use Extensions, compared to sub-classing. thanks, Bill

    Read the article

  • How to bundle extension methods requiring configuration in a library

    - by Greg
    Hi, I would like to develop a library that I can re-use to add various methods involved in navigating/searching through a graph (nodes/relationships, or if you like vertexs/edges). The generic requirements would be: There are existing classes in the main project that already implement the equivalent of the graph class (which contains the lists of nodes / relationships), node class and relationship class (which links nodes together) - the main project likely already has persistence mechanisms for the info (e.g. these classes might be built using Entity Framework for persistance) Methods would need to be added to each of these 3 classes: (a) graph class - methods like "search all nodes", (b) node class - methods such as "find all children to depth i", c) relationship class - methods like "return relationship type", "get parent node", "get child node". I assume there would be a need to inform the library with the extending methods the class names for the graph/node/relationships table (as different project might use different names). To some extent it would need to be like how a generics collection works (where you pass the classes to the collection so it knows what they are). Need to be a way to inform the library of which node property to use for equality checks perhaps (e.g. if it were a graph of webpages the equality field to use might be the URI path) I'm assuming that using abstract base classes wouldn't really work as this would tie usage down to have to use the same persistence approach, and same class names etc. Whereas really I want to be able to, for a project that has "graph-like" characteristics, the ability to add graph searching/walking methods to it.

    Read the article

  • Splitting a test to a set of smaller tests

    - by mkorpela
    I want to be able to split a big test to smaller tests so that when the smaller tests pass they imply that the big test would also pass (so there is no reason to run the original big test). I want to do this because smaller tests usually take less time, less effort and are less fragile. I would like to know if there are test design patterns or verification tools that can help me to achieve this test splitting in a robust way. I fear that the connection between the smaller tests and the original test is lost when someone changes something in the set of smaller tests. Another fear is that the set of smaller tests doesn't really cover the big test. An example of what I am aiming at: //Class under test class A { public void setB(B b){ this.b = b; } public Output process(Input i){ return b.process(doMyProcessing(i)); } private InputFromA doMyProcessing(Input i){ .. } .. } //Another class under test class B { public Output process(InputFromA i){ .. } .. } //The Big Test @Test public void theBigTest(){ A systemUnderTest = createSystemUnderTest(); // <-- expect that this is expensive Input i = createInput(); Output o = systemUnderTest.process(i); // <-- .. or expect that this is expensive assertEquals(o, expectedOutput()); } //The splitted tests @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest1(){ // this method is a bit too long but its just an example.. Input i = createInput(); InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B b = mock(B.class); when(b.process(x)).thenReturn(expected); A classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassA(); classUnderTest.setB(b); Output o = classUnderTest.process(i); assertEquals(o, expected); verify(b).process(x); verifyNoMoreInteractions(b); } @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest2(){ InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassB(); Output o = classUnderTest.process(x); assertEquals(o, expected); }

    Read the article

  • Tool to write linear temporal logic from UML 2.0 sequence diagram

    - by user326180
    i am working on checking model consistency of software. to do this i need to write linear temporal logic for UML 2.0 sequence diagram. if any body have any other tool for the same please response as soon as possible. I will be very obliged to you. i have found charmy tool have plugin for the same. Does anybody have source code for charmy tool(CHecking ARchitectural Model consistencY). It is not available on their website. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >