Search Results

Search found 41483 results on 1660 pages for 'list style'.

Page 150/1660 | < Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >

  • Way to get VS 2008 to stop forcing indentation on namespaces?

    - by Earlz
    I've never really been a big fan of the way most editors handle namespaces. They always force you to add an extra pointless level of indentation. For instance, I have a lot of code in a page that I would much rather prefer formatted as namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } and not something like namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } Honestly, I don't really even like the class thing being indented most of the time because I usually only have 1 class per file. And it doesn't look as bad here, but when you get a ton of code and lot of scopes, you can easily have indentation that forces you off the screen, and plus here I just used 2-space tabs and not 4-space as is used by us. Anyway, is there some way to get Visual Studio to stop trying to indent namespaces for me like that?

    Read the article

  • Which syntax is better for return value?

    - by Omar Kooheji
    I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this: public bool MethodName() { bool returnValue = false; if (expression) { // do something returnValue = MethodCall(); } else { // do something else returnValue = Expression; } return returnValue; } This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct? I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Should a connect method return a value?

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

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

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

    Read the article

  • 'AND' vs '&&' as operator

    - by ts
    Actually, i am facing a codebase where developpers decided to use 'AND' and 'OR' instead of '&&' and '||'. I know that there is difference in operators precedence (&& goes before 'and'), but with given framework (prestashop to be precise) is clearly not a reason. So, my question: which version are you using? Is 'and' more readable than '&&'? || there is ~ difference?

    Read the article

  • What does 'foo' really mean?

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

    Read the article

  • Vim 80 column layout concerns

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inline function vs predefined functions

    - by glaz666
    Can any body throw me some arguments for using inline functions against passing predefined function name to some handler. I.e. which is better: (function(){ setTimeout(function(){ /*some code here*/ }, 5); })(); versus (function(){ function invokeMe() { /*code*/ } setTimeout(invokeMe, 5); })(); Strange question, but we are almost fighting in the team about this

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with accessing DBI directly?

    - by canavanin
    Hi everyone! I'm currently reading Effective Perl Programming (2nd edition). I have come across a piece of code which was described as being poorly written, but I don't yet understand what's so bad about it, or how it should be improved. It would be great if someone could explain the matter to me. Here's the code in question: sub sum_values_per_key { my ( $class, $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ) = @_; my %results; my $dbh = DBI->connect( $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ); my $sth = $dbh->prepare( 'select key, calculate(value) from my_table'); $sth->execute(); # ... fill %results ... $sth->finish(); $dbh->disconnect(); return \%results; } The example comes from the chapter on testing your code (p. 324/325). The sentence that has left me wondering about how to improve the code is the following: Since the code was poorly written and accesses DBI directly, you'll have to create a fake DBI object to stand in for the real thing. I have probably not understood a lot of what the book has so far been trying to teach me, or I have skipped the section relevant for understanding what's bad practice about the above code... Well, thanks in advance for your help!

    Read the article

  • Placement of service methods

    - by mhp
    Let's assume I have two service classes with the following methods: GroupService createGroup() deleteGroup() updateGroup() findGroup() UserService createUser() deleteUser() updateUser() findUser() Now, I am thinking about the aesthetics of theses classes. Imagine we want to implement a method which search for all user of a specific group. Which service class is responsible for such a method? I mean, the return value is a user (or maybe a collection of users) but the parameter (which means the name of the group) is a group. So which service class is the better place to put this method in?

    Read the article

  • Who likes #regions in Visual Studio?

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

    Read the article

  • Compile error with initializer_list when trying to use it to initialize member value of class

    - by ilektron
    I am trying to make a class initializable from an initialization_list in a class constructor's constructor's initialization list. It works for a std::map, but not for my custom class. I don't see any difference other than templates are used in std::map. #include <iostream> #include <initializer_list> #include <string> #include <sstream> #include <map> using std::string; class text_thing { private: string m_text; public: text_thing() { } text_thing(text_thing& other); text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il); text_thing& operator=(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il); operator string() { return m_text; } }; class static_base { private: std::map<string, string> m_test_map; text_thing m_thing; static_base(); public: static static_base& getInstance() { static static_base instance; return instance; } string getText() { return (string)m_thing; } }; typedef std::pair<const string, const string> spair; text_thing::text_thing(text_thing& other) { m_text = other.m_text; } text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) { std::stringstream text_gen; for (auto& apair : il) { text_gen << "{" << apair.first << ", " << apair.second << "}" << std::endl; } } text_thing& text_thing::operator=(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) { std::stringstream text_gen; for (auto& apair : il) { text_gen << "{" << apair.first << ", " << apair.second << "}" << std::endl; } return *this; } static_base::static_base() : m_test_map{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}}, // Compiler fine with this m_thing{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}} // Compiler doesn't like this { } int main() { std::cout << "Starting the program" << std::endl; std::cout << "The text thing: " << std::endl << static_base::getInstance().getText(); } I get this compiler output g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -std=c++11 -MMD -MP -MF"static_base.d" -MT"static_base.d" -o "static_base.o" "../static_base.cpp" Finished building: ../static_base.cpp Building file: ../test.cpp Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -std=c++11 -MMD -MP -MF"test.d" -MT"test.d" -o "test.o" "../test.cpp" ../test.cpp: In constructor ‘static_base::static_base()’: ../test.cpp:94:40: error: no matching function for call to ‘text_thing::text_thing(<brace-enclosed initializer list>)’ m_thing{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}} ^ ../test.cpp:94:40: note: candidates are: ../test.cpp:72:1: note: text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list<std::pair<const std::basic_string<char>, const std::basic_string<char> > >&) text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) ^ ../test.cpp:72:1: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided ../test.cpp:67:1: note: text_thing::text_thing(text_thing&) text_thing::text_thing(text_thing& other) ^ ../test.cpp:67:1: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided ../test.cpp:23:2: note: text_thing::text_thing() text_thing() ^ ../test.cpp:23:2: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 2 provided make: *** [test.o] Error 1 Output of gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu 4.8.1-2ubuntu1~13.04' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.8/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,java,go,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.8 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.8 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk --enable-gtk-cairo --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64/jre --enable-java-home --with-jvm-root-dir=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64 --with-jvm-jar-dir=/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64 --with-arch-directory=amd64 --with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar --enable-objc-gc --enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.8.1 (Ubuntu 4.8.1-2ubuntu1~13.04) It compiles fine with the std::map constructed this way, and if I modify the static_base to return the strings from the maps, all is fine and dandy. Please help me understand what is going on here.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • why those chinese indent code so differently?

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >