|
To 4'999??? or to 1??
The signature is in building process.. Please wait...
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe by twenty-five to fifty percent; you need to leave some.
|
|
|
|
|
In this case I don't need it at all.. It was there for debugging, because without the sleep, debugging just went too fast.
The signature is in building process.. Please wait...
|
|
|
|
|
No you need to leave some delay in for a development holiday. When Boss Man says the app is too slow, tell him you'll have a look, spend two days faffing, reduce the wait by 20% and tell him you've optimised the code. Simples.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you are doing the same
Thanks
-Amit Gajjar
|
|
|
|
|
vonb wrote: To 4'999??? or to 1?? Silly, to -1.
(Incidentally, sleeping for 0 cycles has "special behaviour")
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. You understand the meaning of this valuable coding practise described in
"Real World Software Development - Volume I: Coding Patterns" by W., T., and F.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... is this dumb or brilliant?
if ((logicalTabs ? tabs_General1.cbException.Focused : tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused) &&
e.KeyCode == Keys.Up)
{
as opposed to:
if (( (logicalTabs && tabs_General1.cbException.Focused) ||
(!logicalTabs && tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused) ) &&
e.KeyCode == Keys.Up)
{
I can't decide now.
Readability contrasting with good practice?
|
|
|
|
|
Second one. I think in first case, it is easy for someone to incorrectly infer the condition.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
The second one is a lot easier to read - you have to stop and think about the first one.
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the first method, but for readability would split it into two separate statements by using an extra variable:
bool focused = logicalTabs ? tabs_General1.cbException.Focused : tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused;
if (focused && e.KeyCode == Keys.Up)
{
|
|
|
|
|
..and what if another condition needs to be added?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
if (e.KeyCode == Keys.Up)
{
bool focused = logicalTabs ? tabs_General1.cbException.Focused : tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused;
if(focused )
{
}
}
I think it would be also a choice...
Life is all about share and care...
public class Life : ICareable,IShareable
{
// implements yours...
}
|
|
|
|
|
The first is nasty. Embedding one ternary expression in a second or an if results in hard to read code. I'd say it's a tossup between the second and putting the ternary in a temp. Mostly that comes down to if the temp has any intrinsic meaning on its own (regardless of if it's used in a second place).
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
bool rightFocus = logicalTabs ? tabs_General1.cbException.Focused : tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused;
bool keyUp = e.KeyCode == Keys.Up;
if (rightFocus && keyUp){
}
This is much easier to work with later on imo.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Only use a ternary where you can't use an if ; why the elephant would you ever use one in an if ?
|
|
|
|
|
Doing so is very iffy.
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's just my brain but the ternary expression is clearer for me That being the case I'd never write it this way in code. Complex conditions would most likely be moved into variables like someone has answered already, i.e.:
bool tabsAreLogical = logicalTabs ? tabs_General1.cbException.Focused : tabs_General1.cbJobStatus.Focused;
if(tabsAreLogical && e.KeyCode == Keys.Up) {
}
This makes it easier to read/change later, as well as making the condition reusable later in code.
|
|
|
|
|
public class ErrorLogging
{
/// <summary>
/// Insert into error log
/// </summary>
/// <param name="errorMessage"></param>
/// <param name="errorTrace"></param>
/// <param name="errorLocation"></param>
public void insertErrorLog(string errorMessage, string errorTrace, string location)
{
int? errorID = 0;
XXXXX_DataAccess.common.XXXXX_CMSTableAdapters.XXXXXCMS_TA ta = new common.XXXXX_CMSTableAdapters.XXXXXCMS_TA();
try
{
ta.usp_ErrorLogInsert(ref errorID, errorMessage, errorTrace, location);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ta.usp_ErrorLogInsert(ref errorID, ex.Message, ex.StackTrace, "insertErrorLog - XXXXX_DataAccess");
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I see in my crystal ball that your future will include something called a "stack overflow". I wonder what that means?
What is this talk of release? I do not release software. My software escapes leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
|
|
|
|
|
Where? he's not calling the method recursively, the max that can happen is a unhandled SqlException.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"
|
|
|
|
|
Oops! Misread that.
What is this talk of release? I do not release software. My software escapes leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake.
|
|
|
|
|
Hm, yes i see something wrong. It looks like a programming question in The Weird and The Wonderful. Please read carefully what the red text say.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
My colleague found this in some production code for a very well known company. I'm wondering what horrors we'll exhume next.
|
|
|
|
|
Mardy Git wrote: <param name="errorLocation"></param>
Mardy Git wrote: insertErrorLog(string errorMessage, string errorTrace, string location)
There it is!
Also, the lack of documentation for the parameters.
And the camel-case method names. (Public members should always use Pascal case).
And the lower-case namespace "common".
And the underscores in the namespaces "XXXXX_DataAccess" and "XXXXX_CMSTableAdapters".
And the underscore in the class name "XXXXXCMS_TA".
But other than that, it's fine. It's not like a database insert would fail twice in a row, is it?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|