Care for belt, suspenders, and a spare rope?
-
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count == 1000)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable != null)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count > 0 && DCTReportRoot.errorFlagRaised == false)
{Besides the fact, the code would blow up before this point if wttResultsDataTable was null, wouldn't the first if blow up if it was null?
-
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count == 1000)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable != null)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count > 0 && DCTReportRoot.errorFlagRaised == false)
{Besides the fact, the code would blow up before this point if wttResultsDataTable was null, wouldn't the first if blow up if it was null?
Nice piece of work, if wttResultsDataTable is really null application will fail in the first place :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count == 1000)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable != null)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count > 0 && DCTReportRoot.errorFlagRaised == false)
{Besides the fact, the code would blow up before this point if wttResultsDataTable was null, wouldn't the first if blow up if it was null?
You cannot be sure... In a multi-threading environment, something bad might happen to the wttResultsDataTable during the calls. Better safe than sorry! :)
-
You cannot be sure... In a multi-threading environment, something bad might happen to the wttResultsDataTable during the calls. Better safe than sorry! :)
-
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count == 1000)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable != null)
{
if (wttResultsDataTable.Rows.Count > 0 && DCTReportRoot.errorFlagRaised == false)
{Besides the fact, the code would blow up before this point if wttResultsDataTable was null, wouldn't the first if blow up if it was null?
I'm not sure he is being quite cautious enough. Surely he should add a test to ensure that 1000 is a positive number?
if (!(1000 < 0))
{
...Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt -
I'm not sure he is being quite cautious enough. Surely he should add a test to ensure that 1000 is a positive number?
if (!(1000 < 0))
{
...Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
You're still taking way to many risks there... Before checking that you should check if false is not true!
if (false != true) { ...
The Mayan calendar ends soon, so you'll never know what might happen... At least THIS software won't break ;p
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
} -
You're still taking way to many risks there... Before checking that you should check if false is not true!
if (false != true) { ...
The Mayan calendar ends soon, so you'll never know what might happen... At least THIS software won't break ;p
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}I remember one FORTRAN compiler (GEC 4070 IIRC) where you could write the equivilent of this:
if (1==1)
statement 1
else if (1!=1)
statement 2
else
statement 3with pretty good confidence that each of the three statements would be executed at some point... :sigh:
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
You're still taking way to many risks there... Before checking that you should check if false is not true!
if (false != true) { ...
The Mayan calendar ends soon, so you'll never know what might happen... At least THIS software won't break ;p
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}#define true false Never trust those booleans!
-
I remember one FORTRAN compiler (GEC 4070 IIRC) where you could write the equivilent of this:
if (1==1)
statement 1
else if (1!=1)
statement 2
else
statement 3with pretty good confidence that each of the three statements would be executed at some point... :sigh:
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
OriginalGriff wrote:
with pretty good confidence that each of the three statements would be executed at some point
I'd love to argue that with you, but I've worked with FORTRAN before. I've seen code I'd swear was dead and refused to remove it just because I've seen things that can't happen, proceed to do so in that language.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
with pretty good confidence that each of the three statements would be executed at some point
I'd love to argue that with you, but I've worked with FORTRAN before. I've seen code I'd swear was dead and refused to remove it just because I've seen things that can't happen, proceed to do so in that language.
Yeah - COMMON was a good source of "oddities". I have seen COMMON used to declare a variable as a single integer, and use it as a multidimensional array of floats... We used to say "Don't like the OS? Use FORTRAN, and change it!"
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
Yeah - COMMON was a good source of "oddities". I have seen COMMON used to declare a variable as a single integer, and use it as a multidimensional array of floats... We used to say "Don't like the OS? Use FORTRAN, and change it!"
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
OriginalGriff wrote:
"Don't like the OS? Use FORTRAN, and change it!"
You've just reminded me of my first ever hack. Back in 1964 or thereabouts at Monash Uni, they had a "state of the art" CDC 3200 to which we were allowed to send decks of punched cards. A day or so later, the deck reappeared, hopefully wrapped in a couple of pages of printout. We mere undergrads were limited to IIRC 30 secs run time, which became a bit of a limit on some of our "foreign orders". So, based on a knowledge of the constant absolute address of blank common and a bit of spelunking (find locations in the OS that changed more or less linearly with time...), I wrote an innocent looking FORTRAN subroutine that reset the job timer if it was close to running out. Oh, the joys of unchecked negative array indexes! Cheers, Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
Yeah - COMMON was a good source of "oddities". I have seen COMMON used to declare a variable as a single integer, and use it as a multidimensional array of floats... We used to say "Don't like the OS? Use FORTRAN, and change it!"
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
I remember investigating one application that tried to jump to an invalid location. That app was innocent. Some other code used COMMON to reach what happened to be that program's current memory location, re-wrote the computer instructions including the said jump statement. The app was just running it's instructions when all of a sudden it wasn't their instruction set anymore.
