|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I really think it depends on the requirements of the object and how it fits into the existing code's style.
I think it depends on the amount of switches.
Easy example in the ProcessStartInfo[^] class. It does not depend on how it fits into the "style".
Show me a more readable version of the same using a constructor and a param for each switch, then I'll accept it may depend on requirements.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Matching the current coding style goes a long way towards "readability". Besides, I'm not here to argue semantics. I merely stated that there's nothing necessarily wrong with a constructor with eight parameters. There are often many more considerations than "I think this code sucks". I'm not really interested enough to list all the ones I can think of right off the top of my head.
".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: Matching the current coding style goes a long way towards "readability".
So you'd prefer to implement that same class as a constructor with 16 switches? Show me a "current coding style" where that is more readable than a single class as described on MSDN 
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I'm not really interested enough to list all the ones I can think of right off the top of my head.
I did not ask you to.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! And you can try to provide alternative constructors with fewer parameters. Do you really always need 8 parameters?
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Taking the same ProcessStartInfo class as an example. Yes, I need those 16 switches, and no, it would not become more readable if you provided an overloaded version of each possible combination.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's the only constructor and none of the parameters are optional...
Oh, and did I mention that the whole class has exactly 0 comments?
Regards,
mav
--
Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a class with 12 constructor parameters but the class represents a single row of data from a database so it is a discrete object. I also did full xml comments on everything so I don't forget why I wrote it. Would that be flagged in a code review?
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: I've got a class with 12 constructor parameters but the class represents a single row of data from a database
I don't do that with column data anymore unless I need the object to be initialized a certain way. I just use object initializers.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
mav.northwind wrote: the whole class has exactly 0 comments
That's exactly how much comments code should have! 
Great code requires no comments.
Most comments are bad anyway. I'm so allergic to comments I even wrote a tip on why you shouldn't comment (and the rare case you should): Write comments that matter[^]
|
|
|
|
|
unless the OP means 8 overloaded constructors with different parameter signatures?
(in which case defaults could definitely help)
|
|
|
|
|
He never said anything about overloads, so I think it's safe to assume there is one constructor with eight parameters.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
he wrote a lot. Compacter is:
Users()
As master Yoda says: "Make it or not. Dont: try" 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Not to make fun of your signature:
Quote: Black holes are the places where God divided by 0
But:
Yes! And the minds of some of the sunshines in Q&A are where He multiplied by zero!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 2-Apr-16 20:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
public int val2
{
get
{
return val2;
}
set
{
val2 = 10;
}
}
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe there was a requirement to not use const?
|
|
|
|
|
No, the requirement was to create a public get/set property named Value2 for a private field named value2 and to use that property to set value2 to a value of 10 - but from outside the containing class..
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised this code compiles, as there is a circular reference in the getter.
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, the compiler will let you run into a SO-exception without turning a hair 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Alas it does, I've lost many an hour to it
|
|
|
|
|
there's one in the setter too.
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly suspect that nugget of joy was written by someone who typically writes in JavaScript.
Or maybe a cat walking across the keyboard.
Any other answer would be insane...
|
|
|
|
|
Or someone who has no idea what he is doing and is playing games in class and not paying attention to the professor.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I think this just speaks for itself...
(I apologise in advance for the pain caused)
How many bad practices can y'all spot in this?
Function InvokeMember(MethodName As String, _
Optional ByRef P1 As Object = "!%$", Optional ByRef P2 As Object = "!%$", _
Optional ByRef P3 As Object = "!%$", Optional ByRef P4 As Object = "!%$", _
Optional ByRef P5 As Object = "!%$", Optional ByRef P6 As Object = "!%$", _
Optional ByRef P7 As Object = "!%$", Optional ByRef P8 As Object = "!%$", _
Optional ByRef P9 As Object = "!%$", Optional ByRef P10 As Object = "!%$", _
Optional ByRef P11 As Object = "!%$") As Object
Dim Parms(0) As Object
If P1.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P1 = "!%$" Then GoTo a150
Parms(0) = P1
If P2.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P2 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P2
If P3.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P3 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P3
If P4.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P4 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P4
If P5.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P5 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P5
If P6.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P6 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P6
If P7.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P7 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P7
If P8.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P8 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P8
If P9.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P9 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P9
If P10.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P10 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P10
If P11.GetType Is GetType(String) Then If P11 = "!%$" Then GoTo a100
ReDim Preserve Parms(UBound(Parms) + 1) : Parms(UBound(Parms)) = P11
a100:
On Error GoTo a200
InvokeMember = DLLClass.InvokeMember(MethodName, _
Reflection.BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, Nothing, DLlInstance, Parms, Nothing)
Dim x As Integer
For x = 0 To UBound(Parms)
If x = 0 Then P1 = Parms(x)
If x = 1 Then P2 = Parms(x)
If x = 2 Then P3 = Parms(x)
If x = 3 Then P4 = Parms(x)
If x = 4 Then P5 = Parms(x)
If x = 5 Then P6 = Parms(x)
If x = 6 Then P7 = Parms(x)
If x = 7 Then P8 = Parms(x)
If x = 8 Then P9 = Parms(x)
If x = 9 Then P10 = Parms(x)
If x = 10 Then P11 = Parms(x)
Next
Exit Function
a150:
On Error GoTo a200
InvokeMember = DLLClass.InvokeMember(MethodName, _
Reflection.BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, Nothing, DLlInstance, Nothing, Nothing)
Exit Function
a200:
Dim m As String = ""
m = m & "Error invoking Method: " & MethodName & vbCrLf
m = m & "Either the Method Name is incorrect (Check Case Sensitivity)" & vbCrLf
m = m & "Or The Parameter sequence does not match the Methods signature"
InvokeExitSystem(m)
End Function
(PS - this is actually VB.NET code).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I gave up counting them after reading optional byref p2 as object
just luckily its the practically weekend at 5:30 today (long live the long weekend )
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Luckily I've got two weeks vacation - I think I need it. My eyes are bleeding.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
