Search Results

Search found 12067 results on 483 pages for 'cascading style sheets'.

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 64/483 | < Previous Page | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • What goes into main function?

    - by Woltan
    I am looking for a best practice tip of what goes into the main function of a program using c++. Currently I think two approaches are possible. (Although the "margins" of those approaches can be arbitrarily close to each other) 1: Write a "Master"-class that receives the parameters passed to the main function and handle the complete program in that "Master"-class (Of course you also make use of other classes). Therefore the main function would be reduced to a minimum of lines. #include "MasterClass.h" int main(int args, char* argv[]) { MasterClass MC(args, argv); } 2: Write the "complete" program in the main function making use of user defined objects of course! However there are also global functions involved and the main function can get somewhat large. I am looking for some general guidelines of how to write the main function of a program in c++. I came across this issue by trying to write some unit test for the first approach, which is a little difficult since most of the methods are private. Thx in advance for any help, suggestion, link, ...

    Read the article

  • how to tackle a new project

    - by stevo
    Hi, I have a question about best practice on how to tackle a new project, any project. When starting a new project how do you go about tackling the project, do you split it into sections, start writing code, draw up flow diagrams. I'm asking this question because I'm looking for advice on how I can start new projects so I can get going on them quicker. I can have it planned, designed and starting coding with everything worked out. Any advice? Thanks Stephen

    Read the article

  • is there any programming language that can bring together edit and compile / run ???

    - by Aff
    When I code, I always write little pieces of unit, and compile it often. This helps me to make sure that everything run correctly, but it's very time consumed. is there any programming language that can support us to do coding and running at the same time side by side ? i mean as soon as a key press leads to valid code, the effect of the edit is incorporated into the executing program.

    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

  • Questions on Juval Lowy's IDesign C# Coding Standard

    - by Jan
    We are trying to use the IDesign C# Coding standard. Unfortunately, I found no comprehensive document to explain all the rules that it gives, and also his book does not always help. Here are the open questions that remain for me (from chapter 2, Coding Practices): No. 26: Avoid providing explicit values for enums unless they are integer powers of 2 No. 34: Always explicitly initialize an array of reference types using a for loop No. 50: Avoid events as interface members No. 52: Expose interfaces on class hierarchies No. 73: Do not define method-specific constraints in interfaces No. 74: Do not define constraints in delegates Here's what I think about those: I thought that providing explicit values would be especially useful when adding new enum members at a later point in time. If these members are added between other already existing members, I would provide explicit values to make sure the integer representation of existing members does not change. No idea why I would want to do this. I'd say this totally depends on the logic of my program. I see that there is alternative option of providing "Sink interfaces" (simply providing already all "OnXxxHappened" methods), but what is the reason to prefer one over the other? Unsure what he means here: Could this mean "When implementing an interface explicitly in a non-sealed class, consider providing the implementation in a protected virtual method that can be overridden"? (see Programming .NET Components 2nd Edition, end of chapter “Interfaces and Class Hierarchies”). I suppose this is about providing a "where" clause when using generics, but why is this bad on an interface? I suppose this is about providing a "where" clause when using generics, but why is this bad on a delegate?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Is there a downside to adding an anonymous empty delegate on event declaration?

    - by serg10
    I have seen a few mentions of this idiom (including on SO): // Deliberately empty subscriber public event EventHandler AskQuestion = delegate {}; The upside is clear - it avoids the need to check for null before raising the event. However, I am keen to understand if there are any downsides. For example, is it something that is in widespread use and is transparent enough that it won't cause a maintenance headache? Is there any appreciable performance hit of the empty event subscriber call?

    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

  • Programming logic best practice - redundant checks

    - by eldblz
    I'm creating a large PHP project and I've a trivial doubt about how to proceed. Assume we got a class books, in this class I've the method ReturnInfo: function ReturnInfo($id) { if( is_numeric($id) ) { $query = "SELECT * FROM books WHERE id='" . $id . "' LIMIT 1;"; if( $row = $this->DBDrive->ExecuteQuery($query, $FetchResults=TRUE) ) { return $row; } else { return FALSE; } } else { throw new Exception('Books - ReturnInfo - id not valid.'); } } Then i have another method PrintInfo function PrintInfo($id) { print_r( $this->ReturnInfo($id) ); } Obviously the code sample are just for example and not actual production code. In the second method should I check (again) if id is numeric ? Or can I skip it because is already taken care in the first method and if it's not an exception will be thrown? Till now I always wrote code with redundant checks (no matter if already checked elsewhere i'll check it also here) Is there a best practice? Is just common sense? Thank you in advance for your kind replies.

    Read the article

  • A good way to implement useable Callbacks in C++

    - by Marcel J.
    I have a custom Menu class written in C++. To seperate the code into easy-to-read functions I am using Callbacks. Since I don't want to use Singletons for the Host of the Menu I provide another parameter (target) which will be given to the callback as the first parameter (some kind of workaround for the missing "this" reference). Registration-Signature AddItem(string s, void(*callback)(void*,MenuItem*), void* target = NULL) Example of a Registration menu->AddItem(TRANSLATE, "translate", &MyApp::OnModeSelected); Example of a Handler /* static */ void MyApp::OnModeSelected(void* that, MenuItem* item) { MyApp *self = (MyApp*)that; self->activeMode = item->text; } Is there anything one could consider dirty with this approach? Are there maybe better ones?

    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

  • 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

  • How to convince a colleague that code duplication is bad?

    - by vitaut
    A colleague of mine was implementing a new feature in a project we work on together and he did it by taking a file containing the implementation of a similar feature from the same project, creating a copy of it renaming all the global declarations and slightly modifying the implementation. So we ended up with two large files that are almost identical apart from renaming. I tried to explain that it makes our project more difficult to maintain but he doesn't want to change anything saying that it is easier for him to program in such way and that there is no reason to fix the code if it "ain't broke". How can I convince him that such code duplication is a bad thing? It is related to this questions, but I am more interested in the answers targeted to a technical person (another programmer), for example a reference to an authoritative source like a book would be great. I have already tried simple arguments and haven't succeeded.

    Read the article

  • please help me to find Bug in my Code (segmentation fault)

    - by Vikramaditya Battina
    i am tring to solve this http://www.spoj.com/problems/LEXISORT/ question it working fine in visual studio compiler and IDEone also but when i running in SPOJ compiler it is getting SEGSIGV error Here my code goes #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> #include<string.h> char *getString(); void lexisort(char **str,int num); void countsort(char **str,int i,int num); int main() { int num_test; int num_strings; char **str; int i,j; scanf("%d",&num_test); for(i=0;i<num_test;i++) { scanf("%d",&num_strings); str=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { str[j]=(char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*11); scanf("%s",str[j]); } lexisort(str,num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { printf("%s\n",str[j]); free(str[j]); } free(str); } return 0; } void lexisort(char **str,int num) { int i; for(i=9;i>=0;i--) { countsort(str,i,num); } } void countsort(char **str,int i,int num) { int buff[52]={0,0},k,x; char **temp=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num); for(k=0;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=0; } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]++; } else { buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]++; } } for(k=1;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=buff[k]+buff[k-1]; } for(k=num-1;k>=0;k--) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { x=buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]--; } else { x=buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]--; } } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { str[k]=temp[k]; } free(temp); }

    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

  • Logical value of an assignment in C

    - by Andy Shulman
    while (curr_data[1] != (unsigned int)NULL && ((curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) || 1)) Two part question. What will (curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) evaluate to, logically. TRUE? Also, I know its rather hack-ish, but is the while statement legal C? I would have to go through great contortions to put the assignment elsewhere in the code, so I'd be really nice if I could leave it there, but if it's so egregious that it makes everyone's eyeballs burst into flames, I'll change it.

    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

  • C# coding standards for private member variables [closed]

    - by Sasha
    I saw two common approaches for coding standards for private member variables: class Foo { private int _i; private string _id; } and class Foo { private int m_i; private string m_id; } I believe the latter is coming from C++. Also, many people specify type before the member variable: double m_dVal -- to indicate that is is a nonconstant member variable of the type double? What are the conventions in C#?

    Read the article

  • best practice when referring to a program's name in C

    - by guest
    what is considered best practice when referring to a program's name? i've seen #define PROGRAM_NAME "myprog" printf("this is %s\n", PROGRAM_NAME); as well as printf("this is %s\n", argv[0]); i know, that the second approach will give me ./myprog rather than myprog when the program is not called from $PATH and that the first approach will guarantee consistence regarding the program's name. but is there anything else, that makes one approach superior to the other?

    Read the article

  • Should I use block identifiers ("end;") in my code?

    - by JosephStyons
    Code Complete says it is good practice to always use block identifiers, both for clarity and as a defensive measure. Since reading that book, I've been doing that religiously. Sometimes it seems excessive though, as in the case below. Is Steve McConnell right to insist on always using block identifiers? Which of these would you use? //naughty and brief with myGrid do for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do if RowChanged(currRow) then if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then InsertNewRecord(currRow) else UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); //well behaved and verbose with myGrid do begin for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do begin if RowChanged(currRow) then begin if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then begin InsertNewRecord(currRow); end //if it didn't exist, so insert it else begin UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); end; //else it existed, so update it end; //if any change end; //for each row in the grid end; //with myGrid

    Read the article

  • How to remove the shadow from a librarystack

    - by red-X
    I'm currently in a project where I need a LibraryStack with no visuals at all, so it would just show the content. If I just remove the background a shadow stays in view which I cant seem to remove... This code looks like: <s:LibraryStack Background="Transparent"> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="AliceBlue"/> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="Bisque"/> <s:LibraryStackItem Background="Salmon"/> </s:LibraryStack> This stack is just for explaining purposes, the actual stack is added in the code behind in c#. So preferably any answers that would be usefull to add in c#.

    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 | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >