The Weird and The Wonderful

You have my utmost condolences... X|

appreciate ur guts to write these lines of code Ravie Busie Coding is my birth-right and bugs are part of feature my code has!

I don't see the horror...

heh Actually, I blame people like for cryptic names of C++ functions... I know a few decades ago consiness was important, but I don't like that in C++ programmers still do this, even though you can easily use self explaining names these days and aren't limited by memory size.

Megidolaon wrote: What is the point of if (node.Attributes\["Publish"\].InnerText.Trim().Contains(s)) { return; } A check for containting a single letter and then doing nothing? No, that loop checks if the node text contains one of the non-translatable strings and if so, bails. Megidolaon wrote: Maybe the XML contains trailing spaces? Unless you trim them, the XML Nodes' InnerText wouldn't equal the DictionaryEntries with same You are correct, however within a given call to TranslateNode(), the xml node stays the same. Until it gets translated from the dictionary. Oh crap, there's yet another bug in there that I hadn't noticed - it can double translate. Anyway, the phrase node.Attributes["Publish"].InnerText.Trim() should be invariant, and I assume it takes some processing. So a line like: string xmlText = node.Attributes\["Publish"\].InnerText.Trim(); and then refering to that string wold have been more efficient,and easier for me to read, I think. -- T

16 layers...that guy must be insane :~ modified on Friday, February 27, 2009 6:54 AM

wow, You ca really **** up your code with C++... :laugh:

I don't get why people cling to arrays in C#, they are less easy to use than egneric Lists and hvae a similary large overhead (the amount of methods available for an array is pretty much the same as for a List). From what heard there is also no speed improvement. And Arraylist should be used as rarely as possible, if all elements have the same type, it's easier to work ith them instead of first having to cast each object. Besides worker threads, that only have 1 object as possible parameter, I can't think of the nedd to hae differnt bkect types in the same collection. modified on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:16 AM

Are you his boss? :rolleyes: 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 [My articles]

Actually this doesn't force the developer to do anythin, on the contrary. It allows to use simple class names instead of full class names. If you hvae a name that can refer to more thsn 1 class, you get a compiler error and forced to use the full name, regardless of usings. But usings that are not use at the beginning of the file but at the beginning of a namespace sounds like more like an accident than anythign else.

*points and laughs* Pointless. Really. The DateTime class can can convert a string to date. Separating the both dates must be done manually, but the conversion can be done by the DateTime class.

Ever thought about using &&?

Perfect for a Scheme macro, oh wait! You are not using Scheme! ;P xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now! ((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))

I would love to have macro-definitions in C# or Java just to break all these silly stereotypes. #define max(a,b) (a>b ? b : a) #define min(a,b) (a>b ? a : b) or #define cerr (cin) #define cout (cerr) #define cin (cout) Aaah so confusing so sweet ... ;P Greetings - Gajatko Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.

would the same work for a switch statement? switch (null) { case dt: {} break; case dt.rows: {} break; default: {/*actual exec., we have asserted everything's cool*/} } or how about this? switch (true) { case (dt == null): {/*handle the case that dt is null, i.e. assign it something*/} break; case (dt.rows == null): {/*handle the case that dt.rows is null*/} break; case (dt.rows[0]["number"] == 0): {/*this element equals 0, it now needs to be assigned*/} break; default: {/*computer finally does something right*/} break; } maybe nest either one in a do loop till the computer gets its sh*t straight. please tell me why this is wrong, as i am just learning.

Enum NumberSize EightBits = 8 SixteenBits = 16 ThirtyTwoBits = 32 SixtyFourBits = 64 HundredTwentyEightBits = 128 End Enum :) IMHO in this particular case, there is no effective use of the enumeration (see #4). There is no checks on invalid enumeration values either; most common call of the CBin_Number function was performed with argument CType(size, NumberSize) where size is an integer. It is hard to find best practices for enumerations since it just grouped constants. Usually all enumeration replaced by the Strategy Pattern during refactoring (see http://sourcemaking.com/refactoring/replace-type-code-with-state-strategy[^] or http://www.jeremyjarrell.com/archive/2007/10/28/64.aspx[^]). Type casting to enumeration datatype does not do validation, so a callie have to validate enumaration value by itself. However, by decalaring enumeration as Enum NumberSize Bit_8 Bit_16 Bit_32 Bit_64 Bit_128 End Enum you may perform range (in)validation InputNumberSize < NumberSize.Bit_8 OrElse InputNumberSize > NumberSize.Bit_16, it also allows compliler to optimize Select statement code execution. Do you think change NumberSize to an integer type would introduce more problems?

I've fell into the same trap; but the original web application was built in ASP and I had to convert it to ASP .NET web app. plus on top of that the share holder is a jerk. Dig deep and stick through it, it'll only make you a better developer. I'm at the end of this conversion and I have learned a lot. Hang in there! -Noir

WTF!!!???? :omg: I think I might be close to speechless. Has the man never had a blue screen of death and gotten annoyed? Never thought I'd hear of some genius campaigning for application failure...

not if its a StringBuilder Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer. -Fred Brooks