Search Results

Search found 15316 results on 613 pages for 'coding style'.

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 76/613 | < Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >

  • What's the best way to avoid try...catch...finally... in my unit tests?

    - by Bruce Li
    I'm writing many unit tests in VS 2010 with Microsoft Test. In each test class I have many test methods similar to below: [TestMethod] public void This_is_a_Test() { try { // do some test here // assert } catch (Exception ex) { // test failed, log error message in my log file and make the test fail } finally { // do some cleanup with different parameters } } When each test method looks like this I fell it's kind of ugly. But so far I haven't found a good solution to make my test code more clean, especially the cleanup code in the finally block. Could someone here give me some advices on this? Thanks in advance.

    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

  • Python - what's your conventions to declare your attributes in a class ?

    - by SeyZ
    Hello, In Python, I can declare attributes all over the class. For example : class Foo: def __init__(self): self.a = 0 def foo(self): self.b = 0 It's difficult to retrieve all attributes in my class when I have a big class with a lot of attributes. Is it better to have the following code (a) or the next following code (b) : a) Here, it's difficult to locate all attributes : class Foo: def __init__(self): foo_1() foo_2() def foo_1(self): self.a = 0 self.b = 0 def foo_2(self): self.c = 0 b) Here, it's easy to locate all attributes but is it beautiful ? class Foo: def __init__(self): (self.a, self.b) = foo_1() self.c = foo_2() def foo_1(self): a = 0 b = 0 return (a, b) def foo_2(self): c = 0 return c In a nutshell, what is your conventions to declare your attributes in a class ?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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 | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >