|
Hehe finally i made my way to The Weird and The Wonderful. Enjoy!
I am sitting here writing some vc++ code cloning some Dom nodes with MSXML and cloneNode(VARIANT_BOOL deep) and i noticed that the deep cloning isn't working. After some googling i found this gem
typedef short VARIANT_BOOL;
#define VARIANT_TRUE ((VARIANT_BOOL)-1)
#define VARIANT_FALSE ((VARIANT_BOOL)0)
with this explanation "This was developed by the Visual Basic folks" Clickety
Microsoft... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
Thank you Visual Basic Team.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to W & W 
http://authenticcode.com
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't a Microsoft thing. BASIC is the issue. non-zero = TRUE.
But it's still idiotic, and yet another reason to avoid lecacy crap such as BASIC. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is a legacy from the pre-BASIC days of writing everything in assembler or direct hex (or octal) code. The value of -1 for a byte of 8 bits was 1111 1111 which also means true (all bits set to 1). This seems to have percolated into VB. I agree that it doesn't seem logical these days but way back then there was no strong typing and bool didn't really exist.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you maybe right. something *convenient* and to do with cpu condition flags.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that always used to catch me out with VBA.
The worst part was that a check box had three states - true, false and indeterminate.
Guess what the indeterminate state was? Yes it was 1! 
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 26-Jun-13 10:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
What means a check box to the indeterminate?! Does it randomly mark it or not ? Or maybe just check it in half 
|
|
|
|
|
A checkbox could be checked, not checked or have a light grey fill - the light grey fill meant indeterminate.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's the check box that is filled in with a square. Like when you have an installer and there's a tree of options, and the root option has a check box that checks or unchecks all of the sub-options, and it turns to a square if you only check at least one but not all sub-options.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeterminate shows if there are sub-checkboxes belonging to this one, some of them can be checked, some unchecked. So the parent checkbox can't be 'checked' or 'unchecked' but partially-checked. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think, the MFC (with C++) had this too, but there the value for intermediate was 2, IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
It really was just plain old GW-Basic, QBasic, Basic-Plus and other miscreants.
Backward compatibility can backfire on occasion
|
|
|
|
|
It has been noticed that some of the developers knowingly/unknowingly use many global variables. But in my view, naturally they should feel confused at sometime, still some of them dont reveal the fact may be.
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm confused by your two sentences. Does that help?
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
|
|
|
|
|
I mean: dont they get confused if they over use Global variables?
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too dont know. It would be great if I get some discussion on this to get more clear picture.
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't the place for such discussions - look at the top of the page.
"This forum is purely for amusement and discussions on code snippets."
For a more serious discussion (ish) try the lounge. But I'd suggest that you phrase it a little differently:
"Do you get confused if there are too many global variables?" is a lot clearer.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, thanks.
Understand SOLID! Believe SOLID! Try SOLID; your Code becomes Rock SOLID!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Mohammed Hameed wrote: But in my view, naturally they should feel confused at sometime, still some of them dont reveal the fact may be.
I don't understand that sentences.
Mohammed Hameed wrote: It has been noticed that some of the developers knowingly/unknowingly use many global variables.
Well, in 99,9% of all my actual project have no global variable. I write OOP so there is no need, except when I like to have one to offend my collegues. 
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for discussing on this topic.
I mean to say: Most of the developers who over use global variables, at some point in time, while development get confused whether to use them or avoid. Some of them may never reveal to others about this confusion.
http://authenticcode.com
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! Ok. Now I got it.
Well, yes. Like everything that is abbused, a lot of global variables can make your day a little bit harder. I'm not one of those "Don't use global variables ever", I'm more of the kind saying. "Don't use global variables ever, when there is an alternative." Oh. I just realized. It's the same. 
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect. Thanks.
http://authenticcode.com
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. Global variables can cause confusion. Therefore developers should avoid them.
It is all about the readability of code: If you call a function, and it calculates a return value based on the current value of a global variable, the only way to realize this dependency is to read and understand the function code. Without that knowledge, you may expect that every time you call that function you get the same value. But if you pass that 'global' value as a parameter to the function, then it will be obvious what the function depends on, just by looking at the interface.
Understanding code with global variables takes a lot more time than understanding code without global variables.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
