|
Is it really so hard to read and understand the forum guidelines?
Regards,
mav
--
Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
|
|
|
|
|
This forum is not a place to ask for help to a problem, but rather discuss what programming horror you have run across and how you fixed it/avoided it (note the past tense here). Try the programming forums for programming questions/problems 
As far as gosub is concerned, you have to take the code that is referenced by the gosub and refactor it into a procedure. Then, call the procedure. Just a bit of code converting ahead for you
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
"whats with men and asking directions?" Finding Nemo..
I am to egoistic to ask for help .. i was just sharing one of my worst experiences.. besides how wud you refactor a recurrsion? specially when all the variables are just capital alphabets?
IF A>1E99 THEN GOSUB#0
HOW I MANAGED TO WORK AROUND
i executed the code on the calculator (Since i am not aware of any simulator for fx880p), used the STOP button on the calculator (since there are no breakpoints in fx880p) and drew a control flow diagram (estimated).. then i had to copy some lines of code into several sub procedures (cons of noodle programming) most of the times, plucking out independent section of LOCs into a sperate function was easy ... some times it was impossible .. i yet have to test the application but as the the saying goes
Testing can be used to prove the presence of errors in a software, but not to prove thier absence... (i think dijkstra said/implied it)
P.S. i used PRESENT TENSE bcz i was still working on the same project not bcz i am PRESENTLY TENSE (and thus need help)..
All Rights Reserved! All Wrongs Revenged!
|
|
|
|
|
digitals2002 wrote: i was just sharing one of my worst experiences..
Okay 
digitals2002 wrote: how wud you refactor a recurrsion?
Very carefully 
digitals2002 wrote: All Rights Reserved! All Wrongs Revenged!
 I like that
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
So, if you want recursion what is wrong with this:
if( a < fSomeValue ) <br />
ThisFunction();
And really, listening to your hardships is painful. Why not rewrite the whole thing instead? Really!
The rewrite might take longer, but debugging time would be shorter, and your code would be one helluva lot easier to manage in the future.
_____________________________________
Action without thought is not action
Action without emotion is not life
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Conrad wrote: This forum is not a place to ask for help to a problem, but rather discuss what programming horror you have run across
If using GOSUB doesn't meet the definition of "coding horror", I don't know what does.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If using GOSUB doesn't meet the definition of "coding horror", I don't know what does.
I guess you have the same feelings towards the use of a nice little goto in c/c++ code.
This lovely keyword is already one of the most unapreciated keywords in the language 
Surely you can't consider __asm jmp some_lable; as coding horror.
codito ergo sum
|
|
|
|
|
Any assembly language is a coding horror (just like any flavor of VB you might happen to mention).
"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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Any assembly language is a coding horror
Awww, come on :->
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: any flavor of VB you might happen to mention
Yep...
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose
ON x GOSUB sub1, sub2, sub3
is worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't remind me THAT... Please?
Greetings - Gajatko
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't know if anyone has seen this horror in Visual Basic 6.0 code.
One of my colleague was doing his assignment. Now say there are three functions Function1, Function2, Function3. Function1 is calling Function2.
But instead of going to Function2 it goes to Function3  . Now I've seen this my own eyes  .
We did try keeping a breakpoint at the call of Function2 from Function1. When this breakpoint is hit and I tried debugging it through F8 key. And I could not believe my eyes. It was going into Function3.
Well after some trial and errors, I changed the function definition of Function3 from Public to Private and guess what??? It worked . Now the code works fine. Any idea why this was happening? Has anybody seen this before?
|
|
|
|
|
Surprisingly, compilers have bugs too.
Have you installed Service Pack 6?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! I have isntalled SP6...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote: compilers have bugs too
And to fuel it, it is Visual Basic 6. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the coding horror here is that you are still using VB6.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
 ;PIf you read my message carefully it's not me who is using VB. It's my colleague.
|
|
|
|
|
Nilesh Hapse wrote: If you read my message carefully it's not me who is using VB. It's my colleague.
That's what they all say.
"Officer, I wasn't coding in VB6. It was my, errrm, friend."
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O`Hanlon wrote: That's what they all say.
PosterDeclaration objPosterDeclaration = (Friend_Told_Me_Or_Friend_Used_It) I_Used_It(); 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd change the variable name to "lie", but otherwise the code is fine...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not! I'm using VB.NET and C#
|
|
|
|
|
There may be a question of scope - your colleague may have inadvertently named Function2 with a global so that if you had:
Function1()
Function2()
Function3()
and did not have debugging libraries installed, the code for Function2 (the wrong Function2 in this case) would execute and the debugger would step into Function3.
The sequence would be:
begin Function1
execute code (possibly under debugger)
end Function1
begin and execute WrongFunction2 (debugger can't enter the code so it executes WrongFunction2)
begin Function3
execute code
end function
|
|
|
|
|
Can you provide some code that exhibits the behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
Please post the code so we can explain why it's user error and not a problem with the compiler. I have a feeling there's a true Coding Horror lying in wait for us.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
