|
enabled( 28, true);
What does that mean, enable number 28?
So then I find
enabled(10);
Ah, WTF?
The 'true' means that the thing being enabled is from a higher version!
Who can I punch in the face...
|
|
|
|
|
It's overloaded:
enabled("punch", false);
Sorry.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it is a default param.
|
|
|
|
|
I have made a habit of naming the parameter when supplying contstants and the context doesn't clearly indicate the semantics of the constant, even when the parameter is NOT defaultable.
Sometimes, even literal values are self explanatory, from the function name, like SetLightSwitchOn(false), but my threshold for saying 'No, it isn't quite clear enough' has been adjusted down in several steps.
If my memory is correct, the option to name non-defaultable parameters is quite new in C#. In some of my older code, from when only defaultable parameters could be named, I specified a default that was never invoked, simply to allow me a compact way to document the semantics in every call. Yes, a comment would have served the same purpose, but naming the parameter is more pointed and briefer. Besides, it stimulates you to give even parameters good, descriptive names when you know that the name will be spread all over the application; you can't just say 'Just read the function and see how it is used; its name is inessential'. Exposing your naming makes you a more responsible programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: SetLightSwitchOn(false)
I've always preferred:
public enum LightSwitchType
{
Off,
On
};
public LightSwitchType LightSwitch
{
get
{
return _LightSwitch;
}
set
{
_LightSwitch = value;
switch (_LightSwitch)
{
case LightSwitchType.Off:
break;
case LightSwitchType.On:
break;
}
}
}
private LightSwitchType _LightSwitch = LightSwitchType.Off;Yeah, I know 'side effects' in property setters/getters are bad mojo. I'm old enough and experienced enough to get away with it.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't these enabled methods part of the IDontMaintainCode interface? 
|
|
|
|
|
Just found more lunacy. It has gone from a punch to a kick in the nadgers too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Film treating fluid programmer? (9)
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Me think Ballmer knew him once...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
He knew him several times!
Quote: Film treating fluids! Film treating fluids! Film treating fluids!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Film treating: develop
fluid: er (ER fluid used in clutch assemblies?)
Developer: programmer
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
The solution is wrong, but the answer is right.
One of the chemicals used in old-style photograph production is Developer - a fluid you immerse the exposed negative in to reduce the silver halides into metallic silver and convert the latent image to a visible (but colour reversed) image ready for Fixing and Printing.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I learnt something new (or old) today.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
woo hoo! Another one I actually got. It's a good thing it was posted an hour before I get up, just starting to understand the way they work. No way I could come up with a clue yet.
My Dad is an amateur photographer and he showed me how to develop pictures way, WAY back. Is that a cheat? 
|
|
|
|
|
Not even slightly! How you pick up knowledge is irrelephant. 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Default methods, great idea. If they switch .net to use binary interfaces this could be implemented by placing the default method at a pre-defined location of the interface, maybe the fourth entry in the interface so it's all standardised.
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to add methods to interfaces, and if that doesn't break the multiple interface inheritance feature, why can't we inherit multiple classes as well?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: why can't we inherit multiple classes as well?
Because classes can have data and then you have diamond problem...
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't a "problem" in C++ - just sayin...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Many things weren't "problems" in C++, but I doubt C# designers want to take this route 
|
|
|
|
|
It was much worse than a problem - it was a complication. If you've ever implemented COM in C++ or non-trivial owner-draw for MFC you have to be very aware of the complexities of multiple inheritance.
I've done a lot of programming with C# over the last ten years. There have only been a couple of times where something would have been more concise using multiple inheritance, rather than single inheritance and multiple interfaces.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
