Search Results

Search found 12236 results on 490 pages for 'color coding'.

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 79/490 | < Previous Page | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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'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

  • 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 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Nice way to break a reply up into pieces in ruby

    - by ChaosR
    Hello, I'm writing an IRCd. For this topic it doesn't really matter if you know much about IRC. Its a simple code style problem. Quick overview of the problem: No message may be longer than 512 characters If the message is more, it must be broken into pieces The NAMES reply sends all the nicknames of users on a channel, and quickly grows beyond 512 characters. I currently concocted this marvelous piece of code, it works perfectly. However, its just not "ruby-like". This piece of code is more what you expect in some piece of C code. # 11 is the number of all fixed characters combined in the reply pre_length = 11 + servername.length + mynick.length + channel.name.length list = [""] i = 0 channel.nicks.each do |nick, client| list[i+=1] = "" if list[i].length + nick.length + pre_length > 500 list[i] << "#{channel.mode_char(client)}#{client.nick} " end list.each { |l| send_numeric(RPL_NAMREPLY, channel.name, l.strip) } send_numeric(RPL_ENDOFNAMES, channel.name) So my question is, any ideas to do this more nicely? PS. code has been slightly modified to make it easier to understand out-of-context

    Read the article

  • How to write a tool, inverting colors in Windows?

    - by vlood
    I read a topic in this site about it, but decided to post another one as I want to write such a tool, but I don't have much experience in C# & .NET, so it could take me too much time just digging the Net, while someone can just direct me to the right library or classes to be used. So, straight to the point. I want to write a tool that, when activated, inverts absolutely all items on the screen and lets you work that way without torturing your eyes with bright light colors. Does anyone have an idea of the needed .NET libraries or third-party frameworks, to implement this? Any help will be greatly appreciated! P.S. Changing to "High Contrast" theme in Windows is not the solution I seek, so please, don't mention it!

    Read the article

  • How to use SQLiteOpenHelper without or less restrictive use of Context?

    - by Pentium10
    If you extend SQLiteOpenHelper, for the Constructor you have to use a Context. I am wondering if there is a way to leave this out, and be able to work with database tables without a Context. Or at least be least restrictive, I mean a way of project/class structure that will make history the several context passings I have to do now. As it is my application has several level of classes, chained in each other, and there are a few that connects to the database, but have no whatsoever influence on the interface, so they don't actually need the Context. Are you creating your classes in the way that you pass each time a Context to them? If not, how you do, how you reuse a Context in a short class?

    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 | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >