|
\n would have been better here 
|
|
|
|
|
Then the replace should happen before the data hits the database.
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, it is. The query is to extract data destined for a target database that doesn't like newlines. It's an edge case, as other target databases are happy with the newlines.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
Uah looks terrible. 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see it, obviously the guy who wrote that used XVI32 and doesn't see anything wrong with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Spacix
One wrote: doesn't see anything wrong with it...
That's the horror. What don't you see? The ambiguity between a line wrap and a line break in a SQL statement?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I mean the guy who wrote it must have been using a Hex editor and the link break was just another two bytes to him, as he could only see "0D 0A" which looks normal, to him...  
-Spacix
All your skynet questions[ ^] belong to solved
I dislike the black-and-white voting system on questions/answers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Recently came across this gem.
<br />
protected void Foo()<br />
{<br />
PreProcess(arg);<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
private void PreProcess(string arg)<br />
{<br />
try<br />
{<br />
return;<br />
}<br />
catch(Exception ex)<br />
{<br />
}<br />
}<br />
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
Future extension?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
probably the coder wants the program to do nothing..
.....
|
|
|
|
|
Spunky Coder wrote: probably the coder wants the program to do nothing
probably the coder do nothing wants to program.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Spunky Coder wrote: probably the coder wants the program to do nothing..
Just because it does nothing doesn't mean nothing can go wrong! 
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
This is to catch the possibility of that the function failed to return.
The code in the catch should then be
protected void Foo()
{
PreProcess(arg);
}
private void PreProcess(string arg)
{
try
{
return;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
main();
}
}
codito ergo sum
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah there are many exceptions that can be thrown by the return instruction...
|
|
|
|
|
The function will ALWAYS return. The try{ return; } are the first 3 lines in the method & where the PreProcess() is called is already wrapped in a try..catch block.
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
like it...
try to return... if you fail, catch the exception and return...
if you can...
(yes|no|maybe)*
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot begin to imagine how the person who wrote this code thinks...
|
|
|
|
|
MarkBrock wrote: I cannot begin to imagine how the person who wrote this code thinks...
A couple of judicious edits and, voila:
"I cannot imagine the person who wrote this code thinks."
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be so hard on the programmer. There might be couple of reasons for this. May be code skeleton was written to be filled later. Maybe there was function body was well but over time it was removed but function itself was not removed.
-Saurabh
|
|
|
|
|
Saurabh.Garg wrote: it was removed but function itself was not removed
Don't you think that's a little dangerous?
At best it's careless & sloppy. I don't want careless, sloppy devs on my team - do you?
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it shows carelessness but how is it dangerous? Actually since I knew nothing about code base and its history I was giving benefit of doubt to the developer.
-Saurabh
|
|
|
|
|
Saurabh.Garg wrote: since I knew nothing about code base
Granted. Suffice it to say that this code forms part of a banking simulator.
Dangerous in that it sets a precedent. This kind of sloppy code shouldn't be checked back into source control. Seriously, if the dev who wrote this was too lazy to clean this up there's a real danger that he'll take shortcuts in other places too. This in itself is already bad & poses a danger to our product as a whole.
So yeah... In my book that's dangerous
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
least there isn't a performance hit. It could have been throwing exceptions
protected void Foo()
{
PreProcess(arg);
}
private void PreProcess(string arg)
{
try
{
throw new Exception("Still being worked on..");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
}
return;
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br />
<br />
string drinkType = tbDrinkType.Text;<br />
<br />
if (drinkType != "")<br />
{<br />
tbDrinkType.Text = drinktype;<br />
}<br />
<br />
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
