|
Yeah, its like climbing Rapunzel's tower to find out that she is actually a he.
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, she is actually a he, and he's an inflatable doll.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or finding out the hair you climbed was not the type of hair you anticipated.
|
|
|
|
|
All it's missing is an inline. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it will be inlined for sure by the compiler in release mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zac Greve wrote: absolutely unreasonably ridiculously insanely crazy
private void absolutely_unreasonably_ridiculously_insanely_crazy()
{
return;
}
FTFY
Alberto Bar-Noy
---------------
“The city’s central computer told you? R2D2, you know better than to trust a strange computer!”
(C3PO)
|
|
|
|
|
Look on the bright side - it's broken up into easily manageable chunks by _'s
Imagine it was not...
|
|
|
|
|
egenis wrote: Imagine it was not...
Using all lowercase.
|
|
|
|
|
In several languages.
Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.
Dave Barry
Read more at BrainyQuote[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
that person can make us pseudo code IDE, SDK everything, he just need some little motivation
|
|
|
|
|
Another bright side: you can harmlessly bypass the call
Function name decoration can also create nice monsters (you can face them when wrapping DLLs), but this is another story.
|
|
|
|
|
This looks to me like a unit testing attempt, similar to the recommendations in "The Art of Unit Testing" : featureundertest_when_expectation
Usually these methods are long, but they are supposed to be read like a sentence.
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice ans well, but I expect some rcommendation any time now that will tell us to wear feathers on our heads and chant while dancing around the computer.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
The chant would be "Owe waa taw goo sigh M"? (Start slowly, pick up speed, enlightenment eventually comes.)
|
|
|
|
|
How about this test method:
AnalyseSchoolHistoryForConflicts_SchoolHistoryHasStartDateAndEndDateAndIncomingItemStartDateIsInbetween_DatesOverlapWarningAdded()
This is a unit test method. It says what it's testing, the scenario and the expected outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
You guys have obviously never written any objective C. The following method signature (without defined parameter names) is a legit initializer method from the Apple code base for the NSBitmapImageRep[^][] object. God only knows what some users have made.
initWithBitmapDataPlanes:pixelsWide:pixelsHigh:bitsPerSample:samplesPerPixel:hasAlpha:isPlanar:colorSpaceName:bitmapFormat:bytesPerRow:bitsPerPixel:
|
|
|
|
|
and that is why I prefer ISO standard C 
|
|
|
|
|
What is actually so bad about this?
The length only?
If yes, then WTF? You are kvetching about length? Why?
If not, then fill it in here:
__________________________
|
|
|
|
|
The length is a WTF because it makes it unreadable.
|
|
|
|
|
Eh?
Unreadable in what sense?
I can read quite clearly, as well as understand the intent.
Long names are inherently self-documenting.
I sincerely do NOT understand your response.
To me, tersely abbreviated names are not only unreadable, but quite unnecessary in this day-and-age of auto-completion.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the most common coding convention argues for 80-character lines, and given that only the method name contains 113 characters I would say yes, it is very unreadable.
Saludos!!
____Juan
|
|
|
|
|
The same reason that writing a 4 page essay in a comment in the lounge is unreadable. You have to parse a lot of text before you can begin to understand what the purpose is. Just get to the point, which I'm sure can be expressed in fewer than 15 words or however many are in that title.
|
|
|
|
|
Lolz. Apparently self-documenting code means that we never have to write commentary? Has there been a formal proof that camel case and embedded separators cover the full semantics of natural language?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
