|
Zani Jnior wrote: I still don't know what she wanted with
Beats me with what she was trying to accomplish 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Today I had to write something I consider a horror. It's very much like some similarly bad code that's been exposed here, but no other solution came immediately to mind... and it works. 
Without going into detail, I have a form that dynamically creates its controls according to an XML document.
So, if the document specifies "System.DateTime" a DateTimePicker will be instantiated and added to the form.
I also decided to add the ability to control the format via the XML, by setting the CustomFormat property.
All is well and good.
Today I was writing one of these XML documents and needed a DateTime with format "yyyy-MM-dd", simple enough, works great.
Until I realized that I also needed to truncate the DateTime (zero-out the time-of-day part in this case).
Truncating a DateTime is no big deal; I even wrote a (poorly-received) article[^] on it.
But that solution won't work well in this case; I wanted a way to truncate based on the provided format.
After a little thought I had the solution, but it feels so dirty: 
mydate = System.DateTime.ParseExact ( mydate.ToString ( format ) , format , null ) ;
I haven't tested it extensively; I'm afraid of what I might find.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Until I realized that I also needed to truncate the DateTime (zero-out the time-of-day part in this case).
Maybe I misunderstood you, but couldn't you just use mydate.Date?
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
|
|
|
|
|
I was just going to say the same, you beat me by 5 minutes 
|
|
|
|
|
No, because I'm provided the format at runtime -- read from an XML file.
The format could be any valid format for a DateTime.
|
|
|
|
|
I did the same.
Something along the lines of:
if (bool.TryParse(someString, out checkBool))
{
someProp1 = checkBool
someString = someProp1.ToString()
}
if (DateTime.TryParse(someString, out checkDate))
{
someProp2 = checkBool
someString = DateTime.Parse(someProp2.ToString()).ToString()
}
It's part of a dynamic Property Grid. Since I couldn't find any type checking for Property Grids, I had to create my own.
And without the above code, if you entered stuff like "trUE" it would remain like that.
With the above code, the user entries are formatted and dates always have the same format as well.
|
|
|
|
|
You can do math on the date to zero-out the time, and then parse it out...
DateTime dt = DateTime.Now;
dt = dt.Subtract(new TimeSpan(0,dt.Hour,dt.Minute,dt.Second,dt.Millisecond));
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but that doesn't help in this case either.
|
|
|
|
|
This is from the documentation of HashSet<T>.Contains
private static bool isEven(int i)
{
return ((i % 2) == 1);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed (and program output confirms [^])!
And also Visual Basic sample is consistently wrong.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
I have now warned all unsuspecting prey. I wonder how many times that CodeDom definition is being used throughout the documentation? 
|
|
|
|
|
No wonder why we are getting so many crappy programmers....
Yusuf
|
|
|
|
|
Actually not. For a beginner something like this is not easy to spot. Once they do, they will have learned that you may never go on assumptions and always must check even the simplest things to make certain that they work as they should.
Crappy programmers are those who are totally resistant to learning from their mistakes.
A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'.
I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you did not notice the joke icon, oh well..... 
Yusuf
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: Crappy programmers are those who are totally resistant to learning from their mistakes.
I completely agree. Mistakes are just hurdles on the path to excellence.
The people who will eventually achieve exellence will learn how to jump the hurdles, all the others will simply say to themselves... "f!ck this" and go get a beer... .
|
|
|
|
|
MarkBrock wrote: "f!ck this" and go get a beer...
If it is just a pause to get distant and turn back afterwards to continue facing the problem from other perspective is not a bad issue. But if it is the last action... then I am agree with you :P
Regards.
--------
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
“The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet.” - Michael A. Jackson
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: : Huh... that's odd...
Clever! Even I can see that.
_____________________________________
Action without thought is not action
Action without emotion is not life
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: PIEBALDconsult wrote:
: Huh... that's odd...
Clever! Even I can see that.
That's better that even odds!
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
In this case I would suggest renaming it to IsNotEven
A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'.
I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: In this case I would suggest renaming it to IsNotEven
Or IsNotEleven!
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Or Mod2Equals1.
Better that the method remain anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
I use this:
private bool IsEven(int value)
{
return (value & 1) == 0;
}
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything.
I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did this for months after I started teaching myself visual basic, I would compare boolean object properties to TRUE.
If (checkbox1.checked = true) then
Needless to say how stupid I felt when I realised what I was doing 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I always thought it should be along the lines of:
private static bool isEven(int i)
{
return ((i % 1) == 0);
}
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
