|
Public Enum HierarchycalEquitySeachType As Integer
SEDOL_ISIN_CUSIP___SEDOL_ISIN___SEDOL___ISIN___CUSIP
End Enum
See - this is pretty much self documenting code...
|
|
|
|
|
They say that if you read it backwards three times you may summon OG the Devil
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
I use 1TBS
|
|
|
|
|
You called?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
With great power comes great re-putation!
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try...but...I see no pentagram. Or Octagram, or Hexagram.
So...I'm free! FREE AT LAST! MWHAHAHAHA! FOOLS! YOU HAVE RELEASED ME FROM MY ETERNAL PRISON!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend going back while it's not too late. It's not as fun out here as you might think
|
|
|
|
|
I would use a hexadecigram.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
The declaration of the enumeration is exotic, for sure.
Its usage is even more:
Dim type As HierarchycalEquitySeachType = HierarchycalEquitySeachType.SEDOL_ISIN_CUSIP___SEDOL_ISIN___SEDOL___ISIN___CUSIP
I don't know for you, but that makes me nauseous.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
|
|
|
|
|
My sympathies! Good thing for intellisense!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I'm scared, people still use SEDOL?!?!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Not in MY systems, but in third-party ones... Ugh... Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Just noticed that in the Unit Tests I've written, someone as taken a novel approach to refactoring. When refactoring causes a test to fail, his approach is simply to comment out the lines that cause the failure.
I now need to go and check nothing has broken in the process - which seems unlikely.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
What is wrong with problem elimination?
This is a joke in case you miss the icon
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: What is wrong with problem elimination?
Tell that a heart surgeon.
You: "Dr. I'm having problems with my heart lately."
Dr: "Ok son, don't you fear, I'll cut that heart out and you'll no longer have any problems with your heart"
You: "Wow Doc, that sounds reasonable. Slice away!"
I'd appreciate it if you would let me watch and video the procedure.
After the operation I've planned in a small interview with the patient, to see how he liked the procedure.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
And that's how Ironman is made.
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, no! There was no mention of replacing your heart with something that works to the same effect.
Just a little heartectomy, Inka style if you'd prefer that.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind that after next 50 years.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like Taste Failing.
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing more useless than a test that always fails is a test that always succeeds.
|
|
|
|
|
if LEN(@accountnumber) >= 4
begin
select * from dbo.Departments where accountnumber = @accountnumber order by deptname;
end
else
begin
select * from dbo.departments where catid = @catid order by deptname;
end
I want to NEVER work with the guy (and I know his name, BTW) who wrote this crap.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
select *
from dbo.Departments
where (accountnumber = @accountnumber and LEN(@accountnumber) >= 4)
or catid = @catid
order by deptname
Better?
I'm wondering what the problem is exactly... Except for the weird IF statement, use of * in production code and horrible formatting.
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm wondering what the problem is exactly...
The problem is that he's looking up the department by either account number or category ID. This is just bad practice and made worse by the fact (which I forgot to mention) that the PROC's name is "GetClientDepartments" which implies the list is being filtered by clients, not my accounts or categories.
There should be at least two PROC's, one called "GetDepartmentsByAccountNumber" and the other "GetDepartmentsByCategory". It's just plain laziness that he put the functionality for two very different things into one proc.
Now get this -- on the client side, he's always populating the department and catid values!
Marc
|
|
|
|