Search Results

Search found 49616 results on 1985 pages for 'coding system'.

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 126/1985 | < Previous Page | 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133  | Next Page >

  • Pomodoro technique & other ways to increase personal productivity

    - by Jayson
    I recently came across the Pomodoro Technique as a way to increase productivity, get in the zone, and in general feel a sense of accomplishment at setting some short programming goals and achieving them. So far I have enjoyed it and the sense of accomplishment I get after seeing a bunch of short goals add up at the end of the day to a lot of work done on a programming project. What other ideas, similar or not, add a little variety to achieving goals, personal productivity, get in the programming zone, and so forth? What ideas or techniques are expressed formally, such as those in the Pomodoro paper, rather than trite maxims?

    Read the article

  • How to name variables on the fly in R?

    - by Maiasaura
    Is it possible to create new variable names on the fly? I'd like to read data frames from a list into new variables with numbers at the end. Something like orca1, orca2, orca3... If I try something like paste("orca",i,sep="")=list_name[[i]] I get this error target of assignment expands to non-language object Is there another way around this?

    Read the article

  • Static vs Non Static constructors

    - by Neil N
    I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

    Read the article

  • Does malloc() allocate a contiguous block of memory?

    - by user66854
    I have a piece of code written by a very old school programmer :-) . it goes something like this typedef struct ts_request { ts_request_buffer_header_def header; char package[1]; } ts_request_def; ts_request_buffer_def* request_buffer = malloc(sizeof(ts_request_def) + (2 * 1024 * 1024)); the programmer basically is working on a buffer overflow concept. I know the code looks dodgy. so my questions are: Does malloc always allocate contiguous block of memory ?. because in this code if the blocks are not contiguous , the code will fail big time Doing free(request_buffer) , will it free all the bytes allocated by malloc i.e sizeof(ts_request_def) + (2 * 1024 * 1024), or only the bytes of the size of the structure sizeof(ts_request_def) Do you see any evident problems with this approach , i need to discuss this with my boss and would like to point out any loopholes with this approach

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Pro/con: Initializing a variable in a conditional statement

    - by steffenj
    In C++ you can initialize a variable in an if statement, like so: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing()) { } Why would one consider this bad or good style? What are the benefits and disadvantages? Personally i like this style because it limits the scope of the pThing variable, so it can never be used accidentally when it is NULL. However, i don't like that you can't do this: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing() && pThing->IsReallySomeThing()) { } If there's a way to make the above work, please post. But if that's just not possible, i'd still like to know why. Question borrowed from here, similar topic but PHP.

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard literal constant that I can use instead of "utf-8" in C# (.Net 3.5)?

    - by Hamish Grubijan
    Hi, I would like to find a better way to do this: XmlNode nodeXML = xmlDoc.AppendChild( xmlDoc.CreateXmlDeclaration( "1.0", "utf-8", String.Empty) ); I do not want to think about "utf-8" vs "UTF-8" vs "UTF8" vs "utf8" as I type code. I would like to make my code less prone to typos. I am sure that some standard library has declatred "utf-8" as a const / readonly string. How can I find it? Also, what about "1.0"? I am assuming that major XML versions have been enumerated somewhere as well. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Are "proxy properties" good style?

    - by erlando
    I have a class with a string property that's actually several strings joined with a separator. I'm wondering if it is good form to have a proxy property like this: public string ActualProperty { get { return actualProperty; } set { actualProperty = value; } } public string[] IndividualStrings { get { return ActualProperty.Split(.....); } set { // join strings from array in propval .... ; ActualProperty = propval; } } Is there any risks I have overlooked?

    Read the article

  • How do you PEP 8-name a class whose name is an acronym?

    - by Arrieta
    I try to adhere to the style guide for Python code (also known as PEP 8). Accordingly, the preferred way to name a class is using CamelCase: Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. How can I be consistent with PEP 8 if my class name is formed by two acronyms (which in proper English should be capitalized). For instance, if my class name was 'NASA JPL', what would you name it?: class NASAJPL(): # 1 class NASA_JPL(): # 2 class NasaJpl(): # 3 I am using #1, but it looks weird; #3 looks weird too, and #2 seems to violate PEP 8. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Formatting associative array declaration

    - by Drew Stephens
    When declaring an associative array, how do you handle the indentation of the elements of the array? I've seen a number of different styles (PHP syntax, since that's what I've been in lately). This is a pretty picky and trivial thing, so move along if you're interested in more serious pursuits. 1) Indent elements one more level: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 2) Indent elements two levels: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 3) Indent elements beyond the array constructor, with closing brace aligned with the start of the constructor: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 4) Indent elements beyond the array construct, with closing brace aligned with opening brace: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); Personally, I like #3—the broad indentation makes it clear that we're at a break point in the code (constructing the array), and having the closing brace floating a bit to the left of all of the array's data makes it clear that this declaration is done.

    Read the article

  • Most readable way to write simple conditional check

    - by JRL
    What would be the most readable/best way to write a multiple conditional check such as shown below? Two possibilities that I could think of (this is Java but the language really doesn't matter here): Option 1: boolean c1 = passwordField.getPassword().length > 0; boolean c2 = !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); boolean c3 = !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); if (c1 && c2 && c3) { okButton.setEnabled(true); } Option 2: if (passwordField.getPassword().length > 0 && !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() && !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() { okButton.setEnabled(true); } What I don't like about option 2 is that the line wraps and then indentation becomes a pain. What I don't like about option 1 is that it creates variables for nothing and requires looking at two places. So what do you think? Any other options?

    Read the article

  • Why is there so much poorly indented code out there?

    - by dsimcha
    The more I browse the code to open source projects in languages that aren't Python, the more I realize that it seems a lot of programmers don't believe in proper indentation. (I won't mention any projects specifically to avoid having anyone take this question too personally.) Usually code is indented, but in a way just different enough from the standard style that it drives me crazy, especially in old/crufty code. I've noticed that when I write in C-like languages, I tend to indent correctly as religiously as when I'm writing in Python, with the exception of debugging code that I actually want to stick out like a sore thumb. Given how easy it is with a modern IDE to fix incorrect indentation, what are some rationales for not religiously keeping indentation in sync with braces?

    Read the article

  • jQuery programming style?

    - by Sam Dufel
    I was recently asked to fix something on a site which I haven't worked on before. I haven't really worked with jQuery that much, but I figured I'd take a look and see if I could fix it. I've managed to mostly clear up the problem, but I'm still horrified at the way they chose to build this site. On document load, they replace the click() method of every anchor tag and form element with the same massive function. When clicked, that function then checks if the tag has one of a few different attributes (non-standard attributes, even), and does a variety of different tasks depending on what attributes exist and what their values are. Some hyperlinks have an attribute on them called 'ajaxrel', which makes the click() function look for another (hidden) hyperlink with an ID specified by the ajaxrel attribute, and then calls the click() function for that other hyperlink (which was also modified by this same click() function). On the server side, all the php files are quite long and have absolutely no indentation. This whole site has been a nightmare to debug. Is this standard jQuery practice? This navigation scheme seems terrible. Does anyone else actually use jQuery this way? I'd like to start incorporating it into my projects, but looking at this site is giving me a serious headache. Here's the click() function for hyperlinks: function ajaxBoxA(theElement, urltosend, ajaxbox, dialogbox) { if ($(theElement).attr("href") != undefined) var urltosend = $(theElement).attr("href"); if ($(theElement).attr('toajaxbox') != undefined) var ajaxbox = $(theElement).attr('toajaxbox'); // check to see if dialog box is called for. if ($(theElement).attr('dialogbox') != undefined) var dialogbox = $(theElement).attr('dialogbox'); var dodialog = 0; if (dialogbox != undefined) { // if dialogbox doesn't exist, then flag to create dialog box. var isDiaOpen = $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').parent().parent().is(".ui-dialog-container"); dodialog = 1; if (isDiaOpen) { dodialog = 0; } dialogbox = parseUri(dialogbox); dialogoptions = { close: function () { // $("[id^=hierarchy]",this).NestedSortableDestroy(); $(this).dialog('destroy').remove() } }; for ( var keyVar in dialogbox['queryKey'] ) eval( "dialogoptions." + keyVar + " = dialogbox['queryKey'][keyVar]"); }; $("body").append("<div id='TB_load'><img src='"+imgLoader.src+"' /></div>"); $('#TB_load').show(); if (urltosend.search(/\?/) > 0) { urltosend = urltosend + "&-ajax=1"; } else { urltosend = urltosend + "?-ajax=1"; } if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).empty(); }); }; $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: urltosend, data: "", async: false, dataType: "html", success: function (html) { var re = /^<toajaxbox>(.*?)<\/toajaxbox>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); ajaxbox = match[1]; html = Right(html, String(html).length - String(match[1]).length); } var re = /^<header>(.*?)<\/header>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); window.location = match[1]; return false; } if (html.length > 0) { var newHtml = $(html); if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).replaceWith(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml) if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); }); if ($('[ajaxdialog="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length = 0) { if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } else { $("body").append(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml); if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } var rel = $(theElement).attr('ajaxtriggerrel'); if (rel != undefined) $('a[ajaxrel="' + rel + '"]').click(); tb_remove(); return false; }, complete: function () { $("#TB_load").remove(); } }); return false; }

    Read the article

  • Python Etiquette: Importing Modules

    - by F3AR3DLEGEND
    Say I have two Python modules: module1.py: import module2 def myFunct(): print "called from module1" module2.py: def myFunct(): print "called from module2" def someFunct(): print "also called from module2" If I import module1, is it better etiquette to re-import module2, or just refer to it as module1.module2? For example (someotherfile.py): import module1 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1" module1.module2.myFunct() # prints "called from module2" I can also do this: module2 = module1.module2. Now, I can directly call module2.myFunct(). However, I can change module1.py to: from module2 import * def myFunct(): print "called from module1" Now, in someotherfile.py, I can do this: import module1 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1"; overrides module2 module1.someFunct() # prints "also called from module2" Also, by importing *, help('module1') shows all of the functions from module2. On the other hand, (assuming module1.py uses import module2), I can do: someotherfile.py: import module1, module2 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1" module2.myFunct() # prints "called from module2" Again, which is better etiquette and practice? To import module2 again, or to just refer to module1's importation?

    Read the article

  • Style of if: to nest or not to nest

    - by Marco
    A colleague of mine and me had a discussion about the following best-practice issue. Most functions/methods start with some parameter checking. I advocate the following style, which avoids nesting. if (parameter one is ugly) return ERROR; if (parameter two is nonsense || it is raining) return ERROR; // do the useful stuff return result; He, who comes from a more functional/logic programming background, prefers the following, because it reduces the number of exit points from the function. if (parameter one is ok) { if (parameter two is ok && the sun is shining) { // do the useful stuff return result } } return ERROR; Which one would you prefer and why?

    Read the article

  • How to get all n sets of three consecutives elements in an array or arraylist with a for statement ?

    - by newba
    Hi, I'm trying to do a convex hull approach and the little problem is that I need to get all sets of three consecutive vertices, like this: private void isConvexHull(Ponto[] points) { Arrays.sort(points); for (int i = 0; i <points.length; i++) { isClockWise(points[i],points[i+1],points[i+2]); } //... } I always do something that I don't consider clean code. Could please help me find one or more ways to this? I want it to be circular, i.e., if my fisrt point of the a set is the last element in the array, the 2nd element will be the 3rd in the list and the 3rd in that set will be the the 2nd element in the list, and so on. They must be consecutive, that's all.

    Read the article

  • Let and construct versus let in sequence

    - by Stringer
    Consider this OCaml code: let coupe_inter i j cases = let lcases = Array.length cases in let low,_,_ = cases.(i) and _,high,_ = cases.(j) in low,high, Array.sub cases i (j-i+1), case_append (Array.sub cases 0 i) (Array.sub cases (j+1) (lcases-(j+1))) Why the expression let ... and ... in is used in place of a let ... in let ... in sequence (like F# force you to do)? This construct seems quite frequent in OCaml code. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++ class initialisation containing class variable initialization

    - by Phil Hannent
    I noticed some code of a colleague today that initialized class variables in the initialization. However it was causing a warning, he says because of the order they are in. My question is why is it better to do variable initialization where it currently is and not within the curly brackets? DiagramScene::DiagramScene( int slideNo, QRectF screenRect, MainWindow* parent ) : QGraphicsScene( screenRect, parent ), myParent( parent ), slideUndoImageCurrentIndex(-1), nextGroupID(0), m_undoInProgress(false), m_deleteItemOnNextUndo(0) line(0), path(0) { /* Setup default brush for background */ scDetail->bgBrush.setStyle(Qt::SolidPattern); scDetail->bgBrush.setColor(Qt::white); setBackgroundBrush(scDetail->bgBrush); }

    Read the article

  • Microsoft C++ Language Reference

    - by eSKay
    Whenever any question is asked, and a reference text is needed, I never see MSDN C++ Language Reference being referred. I was browsing through it and I personally feel that it is extremely well written. Is there some specific reason it is not used as often as a standard? Is it because it contains some VC++ specific features?

    Read the article

  • Style question: Writing "this." before instance variable and methods: good or bad idea?

    - by Uri
    One of my nasty (?) programming habits in C++ and Java is to always precede calls or accesses to members with a this. For example: this.process(this.event). A few of my students commented on this, and I'm wondering if I am teaching bad habits. My rationale is: 1) Makes code more readable — Easier to distinguish fields from local variables. 2) Makes it easier to distinguish standard calls from static calls (especially in Java) 3) Makes me remember that this call (unless the target is final) could end up on a different target, for example in an overriding version in a subclass. Obviously, this has zero impact on the compiled program, it's just readability. So am I making it more or less readable? Related Question Note: I turned it into a CW since there really isn't a correct answer.

    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 | 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133  | Next Page >