Apparently there is no limit to naming conventions for method
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
:(( :wtf: :(( :wtf: :(( :wtf: :(( Is that even called somewhere?!??! On thinking, it might be a stub that never got filled in for some reason, but the name is absolutely unreasonably ridiculously insanely crazy!
public class SysAdmin : Employee
{public override void DoWork(IWorkItem workItem) { if (workItem.User.Type == UserType.NoLearn){ throw new NoIWillNotFixYourComputerException(new Luser(workItem.User)); }else{ base.DoWork(workItem); } }}
-
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]
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
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.
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
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.
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
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.
-
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; -
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.
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
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:
-
In this case, she is actually a he, and he's an inflatable doll.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
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: __________________________
-
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: __________________________
-
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.
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
I've used support software from a certain hardware manufacturer. I think their software was written by an intern. All of the names are of the form:
#define ACR1_ACR2_ACR3_..._ACRN 0x........
where each
ACR_i_is a three or four letter acronym for a hardware signal or state. Some of the names are well over 100 characters long, and completely unreadable.Software Zen:
delete this; -
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Yeah, its like climbing Rapunzel's tower to find out that she is actually a he.
-
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.
-
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: