|
Surely you mean:
!Equals.Contains(Contains)
|
|
|
|
|
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = value.ToString().ToLower();
or
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = value ? "true" : "false";
|
|
|
|
|
now your just being silly
I may or may not be responsible for my own actions
|
|
|
|
|
I like your way of thinking... Good optimization, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
depends what type of programming style you're into.
Some might find the mentioned method easier/simpler to read/understand.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I trust computers that much. Can I suggest an improvement?
string valueStr = value.ToString();
if (valueStr.Equals("true", StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase))
{
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = "true";
}
else if (valueStr.Equals("false", StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase))
{
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = "false";
}
else
{
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = "maybe";
}
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, never, never rely on compiler. Damn machines If you need a job done, do it yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I trust the compiler.
It's reality I don't trust.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
The else section should return "filenotfound" I believe!
else
{
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = "filenotfound";
}
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree: the concepts of truth and falsehood do not have anything to do with file systems!
However, in the real world I doubt the existence of "absolute truth" and "absolute falsehood" so a "maybe" response seems reasonable...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not seen that before - thanks!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
Dang! Beat me to it.
Marking it as "news" is pretty hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear VUnreal,
Please find below a simplified code segment that may help you in achieving your code in one line using a helper class.
please feel free to add additional checks and safeguards, and rewrite the helper as an extension to the string class.
string valueStr = value.ToString();
TruthChecker tc=new TruthChecker();
PDFIncludeWatermark_ = tc.CheckIfTrue();
class TruthChecker
{
private static List<string> _truths = null;
List<string> Truths { get { return _truths!=null ? _truths : (_truths = FindAllTruths() ); } }
TruthChecker() {
}
private static List<string> FindAllTruths() {
List<string> allTruths = new List<string>();
char[] t = {'t','r','u','e'};
for(int i=0;i<Math.Pow(2,t.Length); i++) {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for(int j=0; j<t.Length; j++) {
int k = (i>>j)&1;
sb.Append(t[j]+('A'-'a')*k);
}
allTruths.Add(sb.ToString());
}
return allTruths;
}
public string CheckIfTrue(string tru)
{
try {
var v =
from t in Truths
where t == tru
select t;
if (v.ElementAt(0).ToString().Length == "true".Length) {
return "true";
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
tru = ex.Message;
}
return "false";
}
}
Please visit IOCCC.org to learn more about useful coding techniques.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do so many think that try - catch blocks are just here to stop you from seeing runtime errors?
It is a plain nightmare to debug a project which has code like this sprinkled all over the place.
(Note: I removed some confidental information from the code)
try
{
if (SomeConstant != "")
{
this.comboBox.SelectedItem = this.comboBox.Items[this.comboBox.Items.IndexOf(SomeConstant)];
}
}
catch { }
Or one of my favourites:
protected override bool Exists()
{
bool returnValue = false;
try
{
product = GetProductOverWebservice()
if (product != null && product.product_id == m_RecordID.ToString())
{
_product = productinfo;
returnValue = true;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
return returnValue;
}
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your two examples... but there have been a couple of times where I have done the same thing because I don't want an exception.
perhaps a file access on start up that is not important if it fails, I don't want to inform the user and I certainly don't want to crash the application. it is only on rare occasions thou
Yes, I know I could log the error but maybe it really is that unimportant, plus perhaps my error logging process would have an empty catch if it fails to write to a log file (after all, can't log if the logging is failing)
This will do for now
|
|
|
|
|
|
That really is bad code. Should be...
try{
} catch { }
This will do for now
|
|
|
|
|
An idea for "oE" might be: "obscure Exception". The lowercase "o" is to keep it as obscure as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
More likely, "obvious Exception", since If the form does not start you'll notice soon enough.
Obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
The Dutch (yes, I'm from the Netherlands) word for 'unknown' is 'Onbekend' and the Dutch word for 'unexpected' is 'Onverwacht'... So maybe I should have translated oE to uE?
I love all the guesses coming in though, keep them coming!
It's an OO world.
|
|
|
|
|
Naerling wrote: Don't really know what oE is
That's obvious Enough , isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
That's excellent.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Naerling wrote: Don't really know what oE is
I guess it means "objectException", in an extra nasty form of hungarian notation.
|
|
|
|