|
You should probably have waited until it wasn't the previous thread anymore 
|
|
|
|
|
I can't really believe it.
I found this code in a string library I had downloaded from code project a few days before.
I had not read the previous post.
What are the odds? This is spooky.
|
|
|
|
|
Long back i saw this code chunk which was causing alot of issue once a while, unfortunately that code did not had proper logs/comments/exception catching mechanisms involved. So we did had to spend atleast half a day to find it..
class MyClass
{
static int value = 10;
static int Value { get { return Value; } }
}
At first it was a bit difficult to find where stackoverflow exception was occuring and then i was wondering what made the original developer do this stupid way and released with out even testing.
My Blog -> https://adventurouszen.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this also applies to static properties but I had once a similar case in a normal instance property. The main issue for me was that Visual Studio (I think it was 2003) crashed when I tried to debug code where this class was used. Why? Because the debugger tried to show the Value in the Watch-window and couldn't handle the StackOverflowException.
|
|
|
|
|
I've done that myself before. One of the reasons I like to use m_value and Value.
When it comes to pay the rent no matter what [...] I just blew a tranny [...] you do what you gotta do.
|
|
|
|
|
true and every mistake teaches us a lesson and this is one of those which changed my naming convention style of fields.
My Blog -> https://adventurouszen.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Even Resharper advises you to use _value.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty normal mistake although its kind of weird how it made it into release unless this bit of code is only run when some very obscure corner case or feature is hit...
I'm sure there is some good reason ($$$) why the C# team haven't implemented it but I still wonder why the compiler doesn't throw a warning in such cases...
modified 6-Jan-12 16:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
well thats where one good programmer needs to improve his coding practices. Other wise such normal mistakes keep happening. Yep its true that it went to a production code.
Lets not depend fully over compiler, even programmers have to be a bit more smart too 
My Blog -> https://adventurouszen.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
This often happens if you type the method before declaring the variable.
return value; will get corrected by the ide to:
return Value; when the ; is typed.
That does not excuse the original developer for not checking it.
It is also looks far too compressed to me having the entire property on one line, although that is a matter of formatting standards, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
This is true and extremely annoying. If I wanted a capital I'd have typed it as such, damn you!
I like one line properties if they are doing something simple (as most are); it means there is more screen space available to see actual code. I'm generally in favour of condensing things as much as reasonably practical for that reason, and particularly dislike the C# standard for braces which wastes a ridiculous number of lines.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll use one-line properties if they're automatic: public Type Value { set; get; }, but otherwise they are:
public Type Value
{
set
{
_Value = value;
}
get
{
return _Value;
}
}
private Type _Value;
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
The only sound rule that applies to all processes, standards, and approaches is the following:
"The only rule, is that there are exceptions to all rules"
I was talking to my coworkers (all former contractors) about SVN and when to commit, some said "on save", others "end of day" and of course "when I am done". This is interesting to me, that not everything is worth committing, and sometimes things are critical, that every line counts. This is just one of those things, we developers are pragmatic. Our careers are in constant Limbo, between heaven and hell, and the fragility is an ever-present reality. I am sure you have your own examples. 
modified 5-Jan-12 14:48pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of this old chestnut...
"All Generalisations are wrong, including this one!"
------------------------------------
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[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I hate all generalisations!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Almost all generalizations are stupid.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
|
|
|
|
|
This not the place to post that.
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to source control, there is one rule that should never be broken. Don't commit code that does not compile.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer "Don't commit code that hasn't been tested"
I don't regard source control as an alternative to a good backup regimen!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
As the source control administrator for my group, and the author of our automated build process, I've yearned for a wee bit of hardware that I could control.
I would like the ability to kill anyone who checks code in that breaks the build. Electrocution through the keyboard, a guillotine that dropped down from the ceiling, a trap door that dropped the offender into the building incinerator.
My favorite would be Lucite walls that would close around the offender's cube, and then fill the cube with nerve gas. Of course, this gives you the option of leaving them there for a day or two as a reminder to others.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Cruise Control can be X10 automation enabled for exactly this kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad we don't have any interns on hand to use for debugging the thing...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I just found the following code
if (Name == "Ticket")
{
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Ticket");
}
else if (Name == "Advertisement")
{
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Advertisement");
}
else if (Name == "Asset")
{
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Asset");
}
else if (Name == "Telecom")
{
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Telecom");
}
else
{
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Inventory");
}
|
|
|
|
|
It's not that bad!
Well, yes, you could do it with a switch:
IngGenInvPs post;
switch (Name)
{
case "Ticket":
case "Advertisement":
case "Asset":
case "Telecom":
post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, Name);
break;
default:
post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, "Inventory");
break;
}
Or preferably, just remove it as all the created variables go out of scope at the end of the block - unless they are being sneaky in the constructor!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
ok,
how about this
IngGenInvPs post = new IngGenInvPs(taxBO, Name);
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
