Now this is embarassing
-
I did this once in c++, took very long to figure out:
if (condition);
{}
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
-
I'd be more concerned if there was something between the braces to get unexpectedly executed irrespective of the intended condition.
That's exactly what happened, irrespective of the condition the code block always executed...
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
-
I did this once in c++, took very long to figure out:
if (condition);
{}
____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
And I did this once in C, also took me long to figure it out: for (i=0; i <= ....; i ++); { }
-
Embarassing2A: We use SourceSafe. Embarassing2B: It would still tell you that it really is.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This reminds me why i hate ppl who write code like if (x != y) doThis(); remember one time when somebody added some code --> if (x != y) doThis(); alsoDoThat(); Took a while in debugger to figure out what was reason :-p Cause not part of my code :-) I always write my code after that if (x != y) { doThis(); } Even if have to do only one thing :-p
That's usually the case for me as well.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Gary Wheeler wrote:
It's been there for years.
Then it has been working for years too! Don't fix it!
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Actually, it's not. In the code you don't see, it ends up replacing existing information when it should be adding it. The existing information gets lost.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Actually, it's not. In the code you don't see, it ends up replacing existing information when it should be adding it. The existing information gets lost.
Software Zen:
delete this;I did notice that. What I meant is that the application was obviously working for years with that code, unless it's been abandoned. If it was behaving incorrectly it would've been noticed before. I'm not saying that what the code was doing was correct, just that the application was behaving as expected.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
I did notice that. What I meant is that the application was obviously working for years with that code, unless it's been abandoned. If it was behaving incorrectly it would've been noticed before. I'm not saying that what the code was doing was correct, just that the application was behaving as expected.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
This is in a portion of the application that logs performance information for our field service organization. The bug caused part of the information to be recorded less often than it was available. The only way it would be noticed is if the folks doing the 'data mining' were paying really close attention, and they're not. Unfortunately.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Would have been obvious in VB.NET.
-
if (_Uptime != null)
{
_Uptime.Remove(TraCommon.Tokens.TraService_Speed);
}
{
_Uptime = new Service.Message();
_Uptime.Code = SysCommon.CommandCode.SysUptimeEvt;
}I just found this in my code. It's been there for years.
Software Zen:
delete this;:laugh: It took me a while... and even that I haven't written a line of code in years, I found the mistake. This is the reason why I started coding "if" constructs (and the like) with empty bodies even when they where short.
if()
{
}
else
{
}Only after that I filled in what had to be filled in.
-
if (_Uptime != null)
{
_Uptime.Remove(TraCommon.Tokens.TraService_Speed);
}
{
_Uptime = new Service.Message();
_Uptime.Code = SysCommon.CommandCode.SysUptimeEvt;
}I just found this in my code. It's been there for years.
Software Zen:
delete this;That is cool. What else have you been upto these past years?
WP7.5 Apps - XKCD | Calvin | SMBC | Sound Meter | Speed Dial
-
Embarassing2A: We use SourceSafe. Embarassing2B: It would still tell you that it really is.
Software Zen:
delete this;You could always lie and say the blame was falsely attributed due to corruption.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
You could always lie and say the blame was falsely attributed due to corruption.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
Embarassing3: I'm the SourceSafe *cough* data base *cough* admin, which means I'm responsible for ensuring the integrity of our source control system. Besides, this is far from the worst bug I've ever fixed that had been around for a while.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
That is cool. What else have you been upto these past years?
WP7.5 Apps - XKCD | Calvin | SMBC | Sound Meter | Speed Dial
Writing a whole lot of C# that, while it makes FxCop whine like a teenager when the mall closes early, works remarkably well.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Embarassing3: I'm the SourceSafe *cough* data base *cough* admin, which means I'm responsible for ensuring the integrity of our source control system. Besides, this is far from the worst bug I've ever fixed that had been around for a while.
Software Zen:
delete this;That should make it even easier to "fix". :-\
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
if (_Uptime != null)
{
_Uptime.Remove(TraCommon.Tokens.TraService_Speed);
}
{
_Uptime = new Service.Message();
_Uptime.Code = SysCommon.CommandCode.SysUptimeEvt;
}I just found this in my code. It's been there for years.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
etkins wrote:
will lint catch that error
I doubt it. There's nothing to differentiate this case from a normal
ifstatement followed by a scope block.Software Zen:
delete this; -
Writing a whole lot of C# that, while it makes FxCop whine like a teenager when the mall closes early, works remarkably well.
Software Zen:
delete this;I like the comparison of FxCop whinging like a teenager... :)
WP7.5 Apps - XKCD | Calvin | SMBC | Sound Meter | Speed Dial
-
if (_Uptime != null)
{
_Uptime.Remove(TraCommon.Tokens.TraService_Speed);
}
{
_Uptime = new Service.Message();
_Uptime.Code = SysCommon.CommandCode.SysUptimeEvt;
}I just found this in my code. It's been there for years.
Software Zen:
delete this;It 's OK to code like this It was supposed to various _Uptime get the instance in the "{ xxx }" :-D :-D