Search Results

Search found 17731 results on 710 pages for 'programming practices'.

Page 201/710 | < Previous Page | 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208  | Next Page >

• Nested Array with one foreach Loop?

  - by streetparade

  I need to have access to a array which looks like this. Array ( [0] => Array ( [54] => Array ( [test] => 54 [tester] => result ) ) ) foreach($array as $key=>$value) { echo $key;// prints 0 echo $value;// prints Array /* now i can iterate through $value but i dont want it solve that way example: foreach($value as $k=>$v) { echo $k;//prints test echo $v; //prints 54 } */ } How can iterate just once ? to get the values of test and tester? I hope i could explain my problem clear

  Read the article

• Why is not advisable to use goto frequently? [closed]

  - by Babiker

  Possible Duplicate: GOTO still considered harmful? I have read articles that advise on refraining from using the goto operator frequently, but never told why. I have googled this for ever and can't really find anything.

  Read the article

• Can I do everything in C that C++ and C# and Java can do?

  - by Sahat

  Is it possible to write in C programming language everything that you could write in other languages such as Java, C# or C++. If that's the case why don't schools these days teach C instead of Java? Ok the main reason why I am asking is because I don't want to tie down to a single programming language and platform (.NET and C# or Obj-C and Cocoa). Perhaps I am confusing a programming language with a framework? If anyone could clarify all this for me, I'd certainly vote for your answer.

  Read the article

• Truth tables in code? How to structure state machine?

  - by HanClinto

  I have a (somewhat) large truth table / state machine that I need to implement in my code (embedded C). I anticipate the behavior specification of this state machine to change in the future, and so I'd like to keep this easily modifiable in the future. My truth table has 4 inputs and 4 outputs. I have it all in an Excel spreadsheet, and if I could just paste that into my code with a little formatting, that would be ideal. I was thinking I would like to access my truth table like so: u8 newState[] = decisionTable[input1][input2][input3][input4]; And then I could access the output values with: setOutputPin( LINE_0, newState[0] ); setOutputPin( LINE_1, newState[1] ); setOutputPin( LINE_2, newState[2] ); setOutputPin( LINE_3, newState[3] ); But in order to get that, it looks like I would have to do a fairly confusing table like so: static u8 decisionTable[][][][][] = {{{{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}, {{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}}, {{{ 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}, {{{{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}, {{{ 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}; Those nested brackets can be somewhat confusing -- does anyone have a better idea for how I can keep a pretty looking table in my code? Thanks! Edit based on HUAGHAGUAH's answer: Using an amalgamation of everyone's input (thanks -- I wish I could "accept" 3 or 4 of these answers), I think I'm going to try it as a two dimensional array. I'll index into my array using a small bit-shifting macro: #define SM_INPUTS( in0, in1, in2, in3 ) ((in0 << 0) | (in1 << 1) | (in2 << 2) | (in3 << 3)) And that will let my truth table array look like this: static u8 decisionTable[][] = { { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}; And I can then access my truth table like so: decisionTable[ SM_INPUTS( line1, line2, line3, line4 ) ] I'll give that a shot and see how it works out. I'll also be replacing the 0's and 1's with more helpful #defines that express what each state means, along with /**/ comments that explain the inputs for each line of outputs. Thanks for the help, everyone!

  Read the article

• What should I use to increase performance. View/Query/Temporary Table

  - by Shantanu Gupta

  I want to know the performance of using Views, Temp Tables and Direct Queries Usage in a Stored Procedure. I have a table that gets created every time when a trigger gets fired. I know this trigger will be fired very rare and only once at the time of setup. Now I have to use that created table from triggers at many places for fetching data and I confirms it that no one make any changes in that table. i.e ReadOnly Table. I have to use this tables data along with multiple tables to join and fetch result for further queries say select * from triggertable By Using temp table select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on select a,b, c from #tx --do something select d,e,f from #tx ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. By Using Views create view viewname ( select ... from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on ) select a,b, c from viewname --do something select d,e,f from viewname ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. This View can be used in other places as well. So I will be creating at database rather than at sp By Using Direct Query select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something . . --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. Now I can create a view/temporary table/ directly query usage in all upcoming queries. What would be the best to use in this case.

  Read the article

• Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

  - by Steve Steiner

  Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC Filters: How to set Viewdata for Dropdown based on action parameter

  - by CRice

  Hi, Im loading an entity 'Member' from its id in route data. [ListItemsForMembershipType(true)] public ActionResult Edit(Member someMember) {...} The attribute on the action loads the membership type list items for a dropdown box and sticks it in viewdata. This is fine for add forms, and search forms (it gets all active items) but I need the attribute to execute BASED ON THE VALUE someMember.MembershipTypeId, because its current value must always be present when loading the item (i.e. all active items, plus the one from the loaded record). So the question is, what is the standard pattern for this? How can my attribute accept the value or should I be loading the viewdata for the drop down in a controller supertype or during model binding or something else? It is in an attribute now because the code to set the viewdata would otherwise be duplicated in each usage in each action.

  Read the article

• How work with common utils project.

  - by ais

  For example, I have some project Common.Utils.csproj and use it in all other projects. I can store its (Utils) sourses in one repository and modify it only there, register dll in gac and use it as dll in other projects, or I can clone sourse anywhere I need, include project in solution, use it as source and push modifications. So, what is best practice?

  Read the article

• Do you ever make a code change and just test rather than trying to fully understand the change you'v

  - by Clay Nichols

  I'm working in a 12 year old code base which I have been the only developer on. There are times that I'll make a a very small change based on an intuition (or quantum leap in logic ;-). Usually I try to deconstruct that change and make sure I read thoroughly the code. However sometimes, (more and more these days) I just test and make sure it had the effect I wanted. (I'm a pretty thorough tester and would test even if I read the code). This works for me and we have surprisingly (compared to most software I see) few bugs escape into the wild. But what I'm wondering is whether this is just the "art" side of coding. Yes, in an ideal world you would exhaustively read every bit of code that your change modified, but I in practice, if you're confident that it only affects a small section of code, is this a common practice? I can obviously see where this would be a disastrous approach in the hands of a poor programmer. But then, I've seen programmers who ostensibly are reading the code and break stuff left and right (in their own code based which only they have been working on).

  Read the article

• What's the most efficient way to pull culture information out of a resx's filename in c#?

  - by Lee Warner

  What's the most efficient way to pull culture information out of a resx's filename using C#? The solution should also handle there not being culture info in the file name (ie form1.resx). In that case a string assigned "Default" should be returned.

  Read the article

• How do you determine how coarse or fine-grained a 'responsibility' should be when using the single r

  - by Mark Rogers

  In the SRP, a 'responsibility' is usually described as 'a reason to change', so that each class (or object?) should have only one reason someone should have to go in there and change it. But if you take this to the extreme fine-grain you could say that an object adding two numbers together is a responsibility and a possible reason to change. Therefore the object should contain no other logic, because it would produce another reason for change. I'm curious if there is anyone out there that has any strategies for 'scoping', the single-responsibility principle that's slightly less objective?

  Read the article

• Alternative to jQuery .data()?

  - by thebossman

  I'm a big fan of jQuery's .data() method, but I can't always use it. Often times I am rendering html templates that I pass via AJAX and I need to attach metadata to each of the elements in the template. For example: <ul> {% for item in itemlist %} <li metadata="{{ item.metadata }}">{{ item.name }}</li> {% endfor %} </ul> I know attaching attributes to store data is bad practice (and it might not even work in older versions of IE). What is the best practice? Is there a good alternative to this method?

  Read the article

• Best practice- How to team-split a django project while still allowing code reusal

  - by Infinity

  I know this sounds kind of vague, but please let me explain- I'm starting work on a brand new project, it will have two main components: "ACME PRODUCT" (think Gmail, Meebo, etc), and "THE SITE" (help, information, marketing stuff, promotional landing pages, etc lots of marketing-induced cruft). So basically the url /acme/* will load stuff in the uber cool ajaxy application, and every other URI will load stuff in the other site. Problem: "THE SITE" component is out of my hands, and will be handled by a consultants team that will work closely with marketing, And I and my team will work solely on the ACME PRODUCT. Question: How to set up the django project in such a way that we can have: Seperate releases. (They can push new marketing pages and functionality without having to worry about the state of our code. Maybe even separate Subversion "projects") Minimize impact (on our product) of whatever flying-unicorns-hocus-pocus the other team codes into the site. Still allow some code reusal. My main concern is that the ACME product needs to be rock solid, and therefore needs to be somewhat isolated of whatever mistakes/code bloopers the consultants make in their marketing side of the site. How have you handled this? Any ideas? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Technical non-terminating condition in a loop

  - by Snarfblam

  Most of us know that a loop should not have a non-terminating condition. For example, this C# loop has a non-terminating condition: any even value of i. This is an obvious logic error. void CountByTwosStartingAt(byte i) { // If i is even, it never exceeds 254 for(; i < 255; i += 2) { Console.WriteLine(i); } } Sometimes there are edge cases that are extremely unlikeley, but technically constitute non-exiting conditions (stack overflows and out-of-memory errors aside). Suppose you have a function that counts the number of sequential zeros in a stream: int CountZeros(Stream s) { int total = 0; while(s.ReadByte() == 0) total++; return total; } Now, suppose you feed it this thing: class InfiniteEmptyStream:Stream { // ... Other members ... public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count) { Array.Clear(buffer, offset, count); // Output zeros return count; // Never returns -1 (end of stream) } } Or more realistically, maybe a stream that returns data from external hardware, which in certain cases might return lots of zeros (such as a game controller sitting on your desk). Either way we have an infinite loop. This particular non-terminating condition stands out, but sometimes they don't. A completely real-world example as in an app I'm writing. An endless stream of zeros will be deserialized into infinite "empty" objects (until the collection class or GC throws an exception because I've exceeded two billion items). But this would be a completely unexpected circumstance (considering my data source). How important is it to have absolutely no non-terminating conditions? How much does this affect "robustness?" Does it matter if they are only "theoretically" non-terminating (is it okay if an exception represents an implicit terminating condition)? Does it matter whether the app is commercial? If it is publicly distributed? Does it matter if the problematic code is in no way accessible through a public interface/API? Edit: One of the primary concerns I have is unforseen logic errors that can create the non-terminating condition. If, as a rule, you ensure there are no non-terminating conditions, you can identify or handle these logic errors more gracefully, but is it worth it? And when? This is a concern orthogonal to trust.

  Read the article

• Finding databases for use in applications

  - by JonF

  Does anyone have some recommendations on how I can find databases for random things that I might want to use in my application. For example, a database of zip code locations, area code cities, car engines, IP address locations, or whatever. I'm just asking generally when you decide you need a bunch of data where are some good places to start looking other than google?

  Read the article

• Preprocessor #define vs. function pointer - best practice?

  - by Dustin

  I recently started a small personal project (RGB value to BGR value conversion program) in C, and I realised that a function that converts from RGB to BGR can not only perform the conversion but also the inversion. Obviously that means I don't really need two functions rgb2bgr and bgr2rgb. However, does it matter whether I use a function pointer instead of a macro? For example: int rgb2bgr (const int rgb); /* * Should I do this because it allows the compiler to issue * appropriate error messages using the proper function name, * not to mention possible debugging benefits? */ int (*bgr2rgb) (const int bgr) = rgb2bgr; /* * Or should I do this since it is merely a convenience * and they're really the same function anyway? */ #define bgr2rgb(bgr) (rgb2bgr (bgr)) I'm not necessarily looking for a change in execution efficiency as it's more of a subjective question out of curiosity. I am well aware of the fact that type safety is neither lost nor gained using either method. Would the function pointer merely be a convenience or are there more practical benefits to be gained of which I am unaware?

  Read the article

• Implementing Tagging System with PHP and mySQL. Caching help!!!

  - by Hamid Sarfraz

  With reference to this post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2122546/how-to-implement-tag-counting I have implemented the suggested 3 table tagging system completely. To count the number of Articles per tag, i am using another column named tagArticleCount in the tag definition table. (other columns are tagId, tagText, tagUrl, tagArticleCount). If i implement realtime editing of this table, so that whenever user adds another tag to article or deletes an existing tag, the tag_definition_table is updated to update the counter of the added/removed tag. This will cost an extra query each time any modification is made. (at the same time, related link entry for tag and article is deleted from tagLinkTable). An alternative to this is not allowing any real time editing to the counter, instead use CRONs to update counter of each tag after a specified time period. Here comes the problem that i want to discuss. This can be seen as caching the article count in database. Can you please help me find a way to present the articles in a list when a tag is explored and when the article counter for that tag is not up to date. For example: 1. Counter shows 50 articles, but there are infact 55 entries in the tag link table (that links tags and articles). 2. Counter shows 50 articles, but there are infact 45 extries in the tag link table. How to handle these 2 scenerios given in example. I am going to use APC to keep cache of these counters. Consider it too in your solution. Also discuss performance in the realtime / CRONNED counter updates.

  Read the article

• Documentation style: how do you differentiate variable names from the rest of the text within a comm

  - by Alix

  Hi, This is a quite superfluous and uninteresting question, I'm afraid, but I always wonder about this. When you're commenting code with inline comments (as opposed to comments that will appear in the generated documentation) and the name of a variable appears in the comment, how do you differentiate it from normal text? E.g.: // Try to parse type. parsedType = tryParse(type); In the comment, "type" is the name of the variable. Do you mark it in any way to signify that it's a symbol and not just part of the comment's text? I've seen things like this: // Try to parse "type". // Try to parse 'type'. // Try to parse *type*. // Try to parse <type>. // Try to parse [type]. And also: // Try to parse variable type. (I don't think the last one is very helpful; it's a bit confusing; you could think "variable" is an adjective there) Do you have any preference? I find that I need to use some kind of marker; otherwise the comments are sometimes ambiguous, or at least force you to reread them when you realise a particular word in the comment was actually the name of a variable. (In comments that will appear in the documentation I use the appropriate tags for the generator, of course: @code, <code></code>, etc) Thanks!

  Read the article

• Bad Design? Constructor of composition uses `this`

  - by tanascius

  Example: class MyClass { Composition m_Composition; void MyClass() { m_Composition = new Composition( this ); } } I am interested in using depenency-injection here. So I will have to refactor the constructor to something like: void MyClass( Composition composition ) { m_Composition = composition; } However I get a problem now, since the Composition-object relies on the object of type MyClass which is just created. Can a dependency container resolve this? Is it supposed to do so? Or is it just bad design from the beginning on?

  Read the article

• Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

  - by DR

  In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

  Read the article

• When is C++ covariance the best solution?

  - by Neil Butterworth

  This question was asked here a few hours ago and made me realise that I have never actually used covariant return types in my own code. For those not sure what covariance is, it's allowing the return type of (typically) virtual functions to differ provided the types are part of the same inheritance hierarchy. For example: struct A { virtual ~A(); virtual A * f(); ... }; struct B : public A { virtual B * f(); ... }; The different return types of the two f() functions are said to be covariant. Older versions of C++ required the return types to be the same, so B would have to look like: struct B : public A { virtual A * f(); ... }; So, my question: Does anyone have a real-world example where covariant return types of virtual functions are required, or produce a superior solution to simply returning a base pointer or reference?

  Read the article

• Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery.

  - by Alex

  So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value?

  Read the article

• Performing centralized authorization for multiple applications

  - by Vaibhav

  Here's a question that I have been wrestling with for a while. We have a situation wherein we have a number of applications that we have created. These have grown organically over a period of time. All of these applications have permissions code built into them that controls access to various parts of the application depending on whether the currently logged in user has the necessary permissions or not. Alongside these applications is a utility application which allows an administrator to map users to permissions for all applications - the way it works is that every application has code which reads this external database of the said utility application to check if the currently logged in user has the necessary permission or not. Now, the question is this. Should the user-permissions mapping information reside in and be owned by the applications themselves, or is it okay to have this information reside within an external entity/DB (as in this case the utility application's database). Part of me thinks that application permissions are very specific to the application context itself, so shouldn't be separated from the application itself. But I am not sure. Any comments?

  Read the article

• Why is short project lifetime and other situation-specific reasons used to excuse crappy code? [clos

  - by sharptooth

  Every now and then (including on SO) people say things implying that "if the project is short lived you can leave obvious defects there" or "that memory leak only accounts for 100 bytes per whole program lifetime and could be left". Now in my practice I always reuse company-owned code to the greatest extent I can. Like if I need something and I can find it in the company codebase I take it from there and reuse or adapt. This means that any crappy code will be reused as well and I might notice or not notice defects therein. So the defect in some "test we only need for a month" can slip into a proram we ship to customers. And a leak that "only accounted for 100 bytes per lifetime" now could account for 100 bytes 10 times per second in a server application intended to run for months. That's why I don't understand why excuses like that are offered. Is our compamy the only one having a source control? Or are we the only company that requires writing human-readable code? Could anyone shed a light on why people seriously offer such excuses?

  Read the article

• Tool that auto-generate a code for accesing a xml-file

  - by alex

  My application have a configuration xml-file. That file contains more than 50 program settings. At the present time I read and save each program setting separately. I guess It is not effi?iently for such tasks. I need something that can auto-generate a code for load and save my program settings using predefined xml-schema. I found a dataset in Add New Item dialog. Unfortunately, i cannot add new code to dataset1 such as events in set-accessors of properties because of this // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. Maybe, there is a tool that allows a user to generate a wrapper for accesing a xml-file ? Such as DataSet1, but with availability to add events.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208  | Next Page >