Search Results

Search found 4792 results on 192 pages for 'coding idiot'.

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 33/192 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Which style of return is "better" for a method that might return None?

    - by Daenyth
    I have a method that will either return an object or None if the lookup fails. Which style of the following is better? def get_foo(needle): haystack = object_dict() if needle not in haystack: return None return haystack[needle] or, def get_foo(needle): haystack = object_dict() try: return haystack[needle] except KeyError: # Needle not found return None I'm undecided as to which is more more desirable myself. Another choice would be return haystack[needle] if needle in haystack else None, but I'm not sure that's any better.

    Read the article

  • Does any language have a while-else flow structure?

    - by dotancohen
    Consider this flow structure which I happen to use often: if ( hasPosts() ) { while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } Are there any programming languages which have an optional else clause for while, which is to be run if the while loop is never entered? Thus, the code above would become: while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } I find it interesting that many languages have the do-while construct (run the while code once before checking the condition) yet I have never seen while-else addressed. There is precedent for running an N block of code based on what was run in N-1 block, such as the try-catch construct. I wasn't sure whether to post here or on programmers.SE. If this question is more appropriate there, then please move it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Better Java method Syntax? Return early or late? [closed]

    - by Gandalf
    Duplicate: Should a function have only one return statement? and Single return or multiple return statements? Often times you might have a method that checks numerous conditions and returns a status (lets say boolean for now). Is it better to define a flag, set it during the method, and return it at the end : boolean validate(DomainObject o) { boolean valid = false; if (o.property == x) { valid = true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { valid = true; } ... return valid; } or is it better/more correct to simply return once you know the method's outcome? boolean validate(DomainObject o) { if (o.property == x) { return true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { return true; } ... return false; } Now obviously there could be try/catch blocks and all other kinds of conditions, but I think the concept is clear. Opinions?

    Read the article

  • PHP if statement - select two different get variables?

    - by arsoneffect
    Below is my example script: <li><a <?php if ($_GET['page']=='photos' && $_GET['view']!=="projects"||!=="forsale") { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos\""); } ?>>Photos</a></li> <li><a <?php if ($_GET['view']=='projects') { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos&view=projects\""); } ?>>Projects</a></li> <li><a <?php if ($_GET['view']=='forsale') { echo ("href=\"#\" class=\"active\""); } else { echo ("href=\"/?page=photos&view=forsale\""); } ?>>For Sale</a></li> I want the PHP to echo the "href="#" class="active" only when it is not on the two pages: ?page=photos&view=forsale or ?page=photos&view=projects

    Read the article

  • What's Your favorite f# use? where does f# makes life (a lot) easier (compared to c#)?

    - by luckyluke
    I've skimmed the stack and did not get the overflow as there is probably no such question. I'm just learning f# and I am A seasoned c# and .net dev. I am into financial apps and currently F# helps me a lot with maths calcs like zero finding or minimum finding (although I still want some good maths library there). I see that processing multiple items (files or smth) tends to be easier, but my GUI (web, win) are still c# based. I am in the team of 5 devs and we know that the new tool is out, we are learning it after hours (to pimp ourselves up) but maybe we shouldn't bash the door somebody already opened. So in business apps, whats Your first killer part of soft You would code in F# (if You could and would know IT would be easier, faster, more testable, easier to maintain etc.? Business rules? ImageProcessing? Data processing? hope it's not to subjective. luke

    Read the article

  • Resharper: how to force introducing new private fields at the bottom of the class?

    - by Igor Brejc
    Resharper offers a very useful introduce and initialize field xxx action when you specify a new parameter in a constructor like: Constructor (int parameter) The only (minor) nuisance is that it puts the new field at the beginning of the class - and I'm a fan of putting private parts as far away as possible from the prying eyes of strangers ;). If, however, you already have some private fields in the class, Resharper will put the new field "correctly" (note the quotes, I don't want to start a flame war over this issue) next to those, even if they are at the end of the class. Is there a way to force Resharper to always put new fields at the end of the class? UPDATE: OK, I forgot to mention I know about the "Type Members Layout in Options" feature, but some concrete help on how to modify the template to achieve fields placement would be nice.

    Read the article

  • Purpose of IF, ELSE, FOR macros ?

    - by psihodelia
    I have a source code of a library which has a lot of strange IF, ELSE, FOR, etc. macros for all common C-keywords instead of using just usual if,else,for,while keywords. These macros are defined like this: #define IF( a) if( increment_if(), a) where increment_if() function is defined so: static __inline void increment_if( void) { // If the "IF" operator comes just after an "ELSE", its counter // must not be incremented. ... //implementation } I don't really understand, what is the purpose of such macros? This library is for a real-time application and I suppose that using such macros must slow-down an application.

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • Best way to design a class in python

    - by Fraz
    So, this is more like a philosophical question for someone who is trying to understand classes. Most of time, how i use class is actually a very bad way to use it. I think of a lot of functions and after a time just indent the code and makes it a class and replacing few stuff with self.variable if a variable is repeated a lot. (I know its bad practise) But anyways... What i am asking is: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo,bar): self._foo = foo self._bar = bar self.ans = self.__execute() def __execute(self): return something(self._foo, self._bar) Now there are many ways to do this: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo): self._foo = foo def execute(self,bar): return something(self._foo, bar) Can you suggest which one is bad and which one is worse? or any other way to do this. This is just a toy example (offcourse). I mean, there is no need to have a class here if there is one function.. but lets say in __execute something() calls a whole set of other methods.. ?? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is GOTO really as evil as we are led to believe?

    - by RoboShop
    I'm a young programmer, so all my working life I've been told GOTO is evil, don't use it, if you do, your first born son will die. Recently, I've realized that GOTO actually still exists in .NET and I was wondering, is GOTO really as bad as they say, or is it just because everyone says you shouldn't use it, so that's why you don't. I know GOTO can be used badly, but are there any legit situations where you may possibly use it. The only thing I can think of is maybe to use GOTO to break out of a bunch of nested loops. I reckon that might be better then having to "break" out of each of them but because GOTO is supposedly always bad, I would never use it and it would probably never pass a peer review. What are your views? Is GOTO always bad? Can it sometimes be good? Has anyone here actually been gutsy enough to use GOTO for a real life system?

    Read the article

  • Python: When passing variables between methods, is it necessary to assign it a new name?

    - by Anthony
    I'm thinking that the answer is probably 'no' if the program is small and there are a lot of methods, but what about in a larger program? If I am going to be using one variable in multiple methods throughout the program, is it smarter to: Come up with a different phrasing for each method (to eliminate naming conflicts). Use the same name for each method (to eliminate confusion) Just use a global variable (to eliminate both) This is more of a stylistic question than anything else. What naming convention do YOU use when passing variables?

    Read the article

  • Pyjamas import statements

    - by Gordon Worley
    I'm starting to use Pyjamas and I'm running into some annoyances. I have to import a lot of stuff to make a script work well. For example, to make a button I need to first from pyjamas.ui.Button import Button and then I can use Button. Note that import pyjamas.ui.Button and then using Button.Button doesn't work (results in errors when you build to JavaScript, at least in 0.7pre1). Does anyone have a better example of a good way to do the import statements in Pyjamas than what the Pyjamas folks have on their site? Doing things their way is possible, but ugly and overly complicated from my perspective, especially when you want to use a dozen or more ui components.

    Read the article

  • Interface with inner implementation - good or bad

    - by dermoritz
    I am working on a project with many someInterface - someInterfaceImpl-pairs. Some days ago I got the idea (probably inspired by reading some objective c code) to include the default implementations as an inner class. Now some colleagues (all with much more java experience than me) saw this idea - feedback was between shocked and surprised ("this is working?"). I googled around a bit but didn't find much evidence of usefulness of this "pattern" (personal i like it): pdf-paper and a faq about code style What do you think - especially in those cases where an "default" implementation is tightly coupled to an interface. Update i just found this: Java Interface-Implementation Pair (see accepted answer)

    Read the article

  • How to name variables which are structs

    - by evilpie
    Hello, i often work on private projects using the WinApi, and as you might know, it has thousands of named and typedefed structs like MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION. I will stick to this one in my question, what still is preferred, or better when you want to name a variable of this type. Is there some kind of style guide for this case? For example if i need that variable for the VirtualQueryEx function. Some ideas: MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memoryBasicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memory_basic_information; Just use the name of the struct non capitalized and with or without the underlines. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION basicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION information; Short form? MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION mbi; I often see this style, using the abbreviation of the struct name. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION buffer; VirtualQueryEx defines the third parameter lpBuffer (where you pass the pointer to the struct), so using this name might be an idea, too. Cheers

    Read the article

  • What application you recommend to start peeking to learn Python style?

    - by voyager
    Do you know any application, the more interesting/useful the better, to introduce a new person to Python language and the Python code style, but not necessarily to OO programing, so as to learn the subtleties and idioms of the language and surrounding community? I'm thinking along the lines of people that has worked with JavaScript, Java or .NET, and already have a strong hold of OO concepts.

    Read the article

  • Factory vs instance 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

  • Where to Declare Structures, etc?

    - by cam
    Should all structs and classes be declared in the header file? If I declare a struct/class in a source file, what do I need to put in the header file so that it can be used in other files? Also, are there any resources that show some standard practices of C++ out there?

    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 | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >