Someone please help me ....
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
I don't actually see something wrong with this. I could be that that i changes between
if(i==0)and
*outcallRecvCount = i;But then they should have protected it with CRITICAL_SECTIONS ;P
Learn from the mistakes of others, you may not live long enough to make them all yourself.
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
Gin for breakfast. That should sort it out.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
It would have been clearer if the
if ( ... )had been expanded upon. You know something like this,if ( i == 0 && *outcallRecvCount != 0 )
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
if ( i != *outcallRecvCount )
*outcallRecvCount = i;There that's much clearer and couldn't possibly be considered a horror. :cool:
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]
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
That's legitimate, because the author needed
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
instead of
*outcallRecvCount = 0 ;
on
i==0
:-D
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] -
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
Lovely! :doh: What is even more disgusting is that I've seen similar code in the product I am working on. You know, things like:
if (thisBoolVar == true)
{
thatBoolVar = true;
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = false;
}It is quite painful to have to be in areas of this code...
-
Lovely! :doh: What is even more disgusting is that I've seen similar code in the product I am working on. You know, things like:
if (thisBoolVar == true)
{
thatBoolVar = true;
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = false;
}It is quite painful to have to be in areas of this code...
-
And people ( especially non-programmers/managers ) don't understand why I say that just because it seems to work doesn't mean that it is good code. :) Bill W
Very true. However, I don't want to make it seem like all managers are lumped into the non-programmer's category. Every so often, in some companies more than others, you'll have managers that are technically savvy and do understand the realities of the code base. It's a pleasure to work with these managers, even if they can't fix the world (because of the dictates of managers above them, etc).
-
Very true. However, I don't want to make it seem like all managers are lumped into the non-programmer's category. Every so often, in some companies more than others, you'll have managers that are technically savvy and do understand the realities of the code base. It's a pleasure to work with these managers, even if they can't fix the world (because of the dictates of managers above them, etc).
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
There's a slim chance that the author was trimming some code now and had reason to believe additional code would be added. (Though a comment to that effect would have been useful.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
You must be new to this coding thing... you will see stuff that's far worse.
-
Very true. However, I don't want to make it seem like all managers are lumped into the non-programmer's category. Every so often, in some companies more than others, you'll have managers that are technically savvy and do understand the realities of the code base. It's a pleasure to work with these managers, even if they can't fix the world (because of the dictates of managers above them, etc).
My first manager was technically savvy. He was a software engineer and has written many of the earlier versions of the software. It was lovely technical discussion. But he sucked as a manager / leader, just following orders from the top X| He would come and tell us what is going to happen and expresses his frustration and disagreements. poor fella, can't he fix the world? :rolleyes:
Yusuf
-
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
:~ pretty much sums it up.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
I don't actually see something wrong with this. I could be that that i changes between
if(i==0)and
*outcallRecvCount = i;But then they should have protected it with CRITICAL_SECTIONS ;P
Learn from the mistakes of others, you may not live long enough to make them all yourself.
Well, IF the variable did change the code would make a bit more sense.... I believe what he meant was the pattern if (someCondition) doSomething(); else doExactlyTheSameThing();
-
That's legitimate, because the author needed
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
instead of
*outcallRecvCount = 0 ;
on
i==0
:-D
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]Oh I see it's the space before the semi-colon...
-
Lovely! :doh: What is even more disgusting is that I've seen similar code in the product I am working on. You know, things like:
if (thisBoolVar == true)
{
thatBoolVar = true;
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = false;
}It is quite painful to have to be in areas of this code...
We can build upon this!
try
{
if (thisBoolVar == true? true : false)
{
thatBoolVar = (thisBoolVar != false? true : false);
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = (thisBoolVar == false? false : true);
}
}
catch {}if (thatBoolVar != thisBoolVar) ...
-
Oh I see it's the space before the semi-colon...
Exactly. :-D
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] -
... have to work with people who wrote this GEM
if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;:~
C++ where friends have access to your private members !
Resign now. Don't expose yourself to such level of idiocy, unless you really need the money. And if you can't resign, ensure you make your coworker feel "proud" enough of his achievement to never do such a thing again! Ok, don't be too harsh.
To those who understand, I extend my hand. To the doubtful I demand: Take me as I am. Not under your command, I know where I stand. I won't change to fit yout plan. Take me as I am.
-
I don't actually see something wrong with this. I could be that that i changes between
if(i==0)and
*outcallRecvCount = i;But then they should have protected it with CRITICAL_SECTIONS ;P
Learn from the mistakes of others, you may not live long enough to make them all yourself.
BadKarma wrote:
But then they should have protected it with CRITICAL_SECTIONS
There is only one situation where I would expect to see code like this: when one wants to set a breakpoint at i == 0 in the debugger, and one doesn't want to slow execution within the debugger by creating a conditional breakpoint.