Search Results

Search found 11482 results on 460 pages for 'style'.

Page 56/460 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • "Verbose Dictionary" in C#, 'override new' this[] or implement IDictionary

    - by Benjol
    All I want is a dictionary which tells me which key it couldn't find, rather than just saying The given key was not present in the dictionary. I briefly considered doing a subclass with override new this[TKey key], but felt it was a bit hacky, so I've gone with implementing the IDictionary interface, and passing everything through directly to an inner Dictionary, with the only additional logic being in the indexer: public TValue this[TKey key] { get { ThrowIfKeyNotFound(key); return _dic[key]; } set { ThrowIfKeyNotFound(key); _dic[key] = value; } } private void ThrowIfKeyNotFound(TKey key) { if(!_dic.ContainsKey(key)) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Can't find key [" + key + "] in dictionary"); } Is this the right/only way to go? Would newing over the this[] really be that bad?

    Read the article

  • Safest way to change variable names in a project

    - by kamziro
    So I've been working on a relatively large project by myself, and I've come to realise that some of the variable names earlier on were.. less than ideal. But how does one change variable names in a project easily? Is there such a tool that can go through a project directory, parse all the files, and then replace the variable names to the desired one? It has to be smart enough to understand the language I imagine. I was thinking of using regexp (sed/awk on linux?) tools to just replace the variable name, but there were many times where my particular variable is also included as a part of strings. There's also the issue about changing stuff on a c++ namespace, because there is actually two classes in my project that share the same name, but are in different namespaces. I remember visual stuio being able to do this, but what's the safest and most elegant way to do this on linux?

    Read the article

  • C#: Easy access to the member of a singleton ICollection<> ?

    - by Rosarch
    I have an ICollection that I know will only ever have one member. Currently, I loop through it, knowing the loop will only ever run once, to grab the value. Is there a cleaner way to do this? I could alter the persistentState object to return single values, but that would complicate the rest of the interface. It's grabbing data from XML, and for the most part ICollections are appropriate. // worldMapLinks ensured to be a singleton ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> worldMapLinks = persistentState.GetAllOfType("worldMapLink"); string levelName = ""; //worldMapLinks.GetEnumerator().Current['filePath']; // this loop will only run once foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in worldMapLinks) // hacky hack hack hack { levelName = dict["filePath"]; } // proceed with levelName loadLevel(levelName); Here is another example of the same issue: // meta will be a singleton ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> meta = persistentState.GetAllOfType("meta"); foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in meta) // this loop should only run once. HACKS. { currentLevelName = dict["name"]; currentLevelCaption = dict["teaserCaption"]; } Yet another example: private Vector2 startPositionOfKV(ICollection<IDictionary<string, string>> dicts) { Vector2 result = new Vector2(); foreach (IDictionary<string, string> dict in dicts) // this loop will only ever run once { result.X = Single.Parse(dict["x"]); result.Y = Single.Parse(dict["y"]); } return result; }

    Read the article

  • WPF datagrid template

    - by MadSeb
    Hi, I want to make a WPF datagrid look similar to the HTML grid in the following picture: http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2563/saltoftheearth.jpg Does anyone know an easy way to do this ? Regards, S.

    Read the article

  • special debugging lines (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • Checkstyle for Python

    - by oneself
    Is there an application similar to Java's Checkstyle for Python? By which I mean, I tool that analyzes Python code, and can be run as part of continuous integration (e.g. CruiseControl or Hudson). After analyzing it should produce an online accessible report which outlines any problems found in the code. Thank you,

    Read the article

  • In Java it seems Public constructors are always a bad coding practice

    - by Adam Gent
    This maybe a controversial question and may not be suited for this forum (so I will not be insulted if you choose to close this question). It seems given the current capabilities of Java there is no reason to make constructors public ... ever. Friendly, private, protected are OK but public no. It seems that its almost always a better idea to provide a public static method for creating objects. Every Java Bean serialization technology (JAXB, Jackson, Spring etc...) can call a protected or private no-arg constructor. My questions are: I have never seen this practice decreed or written down anywhere? Maybe Bloch mentions it but I don't own is book. Is there a use case other than perhaps not being super DRY that I missed? EDIT: I explain why static methods are better. .1. For one you get better type inference. For example See Guava's http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/CollectionUtilitiesExplained .2. As a designer of the class you can later change what is returned with a static method. .3. Dealing with constructor inheritance is painful especially if you have to pre-calculate something.

    Read the article

  • debugging scaffolding contingent upon degbugging boolean (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • Way to get VS 2008 to stop forcing indentation on namespaces?

    - by Earlz
    I've never really been a big fan of the way most editors handle namespaces. They always force you to add an extra pointless level of indentation. For instance, I have a lot of code in a page that I would much rather prefer formatted as namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } and not something like namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } Honestly, I don't really even like the class thing being indented most of the time because I usually only have 1 class per file. And it doesn't look as bad here, but when you get a ton of code and lot of scopes, you can easily have indentation that forces you off the screen, and plus here I just used 2-space tabs and not 4-space as is used by us. Anyway, is there some way to get Visual Studio to stop trying to indent namespaces for me like that?

    Read the article

  • Should a connect method return a value?

    - by Matt S
    I was looking at some code I've inherited and I couldn't decided if I like a bit of code. Basically, there is a method that looks like the following: bool Connect(connection parameters){...} It returns true if it connects successfully, false otherwise. I've written code like that in the past, but now, when I see this method I don't like it for a number of reasons. Its easy to write code that just ignores the returned value, or not realize it returns a value. There is no way to return an error message. Checking the return of the method doesn't really look nice: if (!Connect(...)){....} I could rewrite code to throw an exception when it doesn't successfully connect, but I don't consider that an exceptional situation. Instead I'm thinking of refactoring the code as follows: void Connect(Connection Parameters, out bool successful, out string errorMessage){...} I like that other developers have to provide the success and error strings so they know the method has error conditions and I can know return a message Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks -Matt

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with accessing DBI directly?

    - by canavanin
    Hi everyone! I'm currently reading Effective Perl Programming (2nd edition). I have come across a piece of code which was described as being poorly written, but I don't yet understand what's so bad about it, or how it should be improved. It would be great if someone could explain the matter to me. Here's the code in question: sub sum_values_per_key { my ( $class, $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ) = @_; my %results; my $dbh = DBI->connect( $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ); my $sth = $dbh->prepare( 'select key, calculate(value) from my_table'); $sth->execute(); # ... fill %results ... $sth->finish(); $dbh->disconnect(); return \%results; } The example comes from the chapter on testing your code (p. 324/325). The sentence that has left me wondering about how to improve the code is the following: Since the code was poorly written and accesses DBI directly, you'll have to create a fake DBI object to stand in for the real thing. I have probably not understood a lot of what the book has so far been trying to teach me, or I have skipped the section relevant for understanding what's bad practice about the above code... Well, thanks in advance for your help!

    Read the article

  • What does 'foo' really mean?

    - by Prakash
    I hope this qualifies as a programming question, as in any programming tutorial, you eventually come across 'foo' in the code examples. (yeah, right?) what does 'foo' really mean? If it is meant to mean nothing, when did it begin to be used so? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Css attribute selector for input type="button" not working on IE7

    - by Cesar Lopez
    Hi all, I am working on a big form and it contains a lot of buttons all over the form, therefore I am trying to get working input[type="button"] in my main css file so it would catch all buttons with out having to add a class to every single one, for some reason this is not working on IE7, after checking on the web it says that IE7 should be supporting this. Also it has to be type="button" and not type="submit" as not all buttons will submit the form. Could anybody give a hint what am I doing wrong? input[type="button"]{ text-align:center; } I have also tried input[type=button] Any help would be very much apreciated.

    Read the article

  • Which syntax is better for return value?

    - by Omar Kooheji
    I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this: public bool MethodName() { bool returnValue = false; if (expression) { // do something returnValue = MethodCall(); } else { // do something else returnValue = Expression; } return returnValue; } This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct? I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

    - by Art
    While it is recommended to use the following construct to check whether request is POST, if request.method == 'POST': pass It is likely that people will find if request.POST: pass to be more elegant and concise. Are there any reasons not to use it, apart from personal preference?

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inline function vs predefined functions

    - by glaz666
    Can any body throw me some arguments for using inline functions against passing predefined function name to some handler. I.e. which is better: (function(){ setTimeout(function(){ /*some code here*/ }, 5); })(); versus (function(){ function invokeMe() { /*code*/ } setTimeout(invokeMe, 5); })(); Strange question, but we are almost fighting in the team about this

    Read the article

  • Vim 80 column layout concerns

    - by cdleary
    I feel like the way I do 80-column indication in Vim is incorrect: set columns=80. At times I also set textwidth but I like to be able to see and anticipate line overflow with the set columns alternative. This has some unfortunate side effects -- I can't set number for fear of splitting between files that have different orders of line numbers; i.e. < 100 line files and = 100 line files will require two different set columns values because of the extra column used for the additional digit display. I also start new (g)Vim sessions instead of splitting windows vertically, which forces me to use the window manager's clipboard -- vsplits force me to do set columns every time I open or close a pane, so starting a new session is less hassle. How do you handle the 80-character indication when you want to set numbers, vertically split, etc.?

    Read the article

  • 'AND' vs '&&' as operator

    - by ts
    Actually, i am facing a codebase where developpers decided to use 'AND' and 'OR' instead of '&&' and '||'. I know that there is difference in operators precedence (&& goes before 'and'), but with given framework (prestashop to be precise) is clearly not a reason. So, my question: which version are you using? Is 'and' more readable than '&&'? || there is ~ difference?

    Read the article

  • Placement of service methods

    - by mhp
    Let's assume I have two service classes with the following methods: GroupService createGroup() deleteGroup() updateGroup() findGroup() UserService createUser() deleteUser() updateUser() findUser() Now, I am thinking about the aesthetics of theses classes. Imagine we want to implement a method which search for all user of a specific group. Which service class is responsible for such a method? I mean, the return value is a user (or maybe a collection of users) but the parameter (which means the name of the group) is a group. So which service class is the better place to put this method in?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >