Am I missing Something?
-
Am I missing something? Why would you do this?
protected int GetTransactionLength(string transaction)
{
return transaction.Length;
}is this not less code
transaction.Length
than this?
GetTransactionLength(transaction)
This may seem small, but it's just pushed me over the edge. It comes from a program that should be simple and beautiful but it full if this sort of stuff, it’s driving me nutts!
In case you want to overload it?
-
In case you want to overload it?
exactly, i find it very useful to create a Getter/Setter for each member (even if it is public) just in case something changes in the future and it needs to be recovered later. Example: if the length now has to adjust, for example, +5 in the current version, simply change the code on GetTranslation(...) { return object.translation+5; } and automatically all the code that refers to this translation is conveniently adjusted. This is no coding horror, but a wise implementation with future alterability. :)
-
He left.. He was Microsoft certified, I guess there’s just something’s you can’t teach!
outside cosmic wrote:
He left.. He was Microsoft certified
ftfy
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
Am I missing something? Why would you do this?
protected int GetTransactionLength(string transaction)
{
return transaction.Length;
}is this not less code
transaction.Length
than this?
GetTransactionLength(transaction)
This may seem small, but it's just pushed me over the edge. It comes from a program that should be simple and beautiful but it full if this sort of stuff, it’s driving me nutts!
This is bizzare and overwrought. Perhaps he ment to do something like
protected int GetTransactionLength(string transaction)
{
if(transaction == null)
return 0;
return transaction.Length;
}CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
-
This is bizzare and overwrought. Perhaps he ment to do something like
protected int GetTransactionLength(string transaction)
{
if(transaction == null)
return 0;
return transaction.Length;
}CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
-
And if you get an zero-length string? It's uncommon, but you might want to consider returning -1 instead of zero.
OSDev :)
This wasn't meant to be production level code, just a musing into the weird thought-processes of the original coder of this horror :-)!
0x3c0 wrote:
And if you get an zero-length string?
Heavily depends upon the context, but IMO 0 is better as, the need to differentiate between
nulland""when getting the length is rare (diffent for the object itself of course).0x3c0 wrote:
It's uncommon
Nope!
string foo = "";orstring foo = string.Empty;Are the best ways to declare a string if you don't already have a value for it. The last time I got into a discussion like this, it really dragged on.... http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3251798/NULLABLE-type.aspx[^]CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
-
This wasn't meant to be production level code, just a musing into the weird thought-processes of the original coder of this horror :-)!
0x3c0 wrote:
And if you get an zero-length string?
Heavily depends upon the context, but IMO 0 is better as, the need to differentiate between
nulland""when getting the length is rare (diffent for the object itself of course).0x3c0 wrote:
It's uncommon
Nope!
string foo = "";orstring foo = string.Empty;Are the best ways to declare a string if you don't already have a value for it. The last time I got into a discussion like this, it really dragged on.... http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3251798/NULLABLE-type.aspx[^]CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
keefb wrote:
Heavily depends upon the context, but IMO 0 is better as, the need to differentiate between null and "" when getting the length is rare (diffent for the object itself of course).
You're right; that requirement isn't common. But if I need it, I'd quite like to be able to get it without having to either write another method or altering the original method. It doesn't add much code, and it fits my personal coding style. Plus, if the string is
null, then retrieving Length will cause an exception. I don't like blurring cases together when one of them raises an exception.OSDev :)
-
keefb wrote:
Heavily depends upon the context, but IMO 0 is better as, the need to differentiate between null and "" when getting the length is rare (diffent for the object itself of course).
You're right; that requirement isn't common. But if I need it, I'd quite like to be able to get it without having to either write another method or altering the original method. It doesn't add much code, and it fits my personal coding style. Plus, if the string is
null, then retrieving Length will cause an exception. I don't like blurring cases together when one of them raises an exception.OSDev :)
I just made a throw-away observation that perhaps the orginal coder meant to perform some form of null checking and got it wrong (possibly by deleting it), then the error was repeated copied and pasted. Personally I work hard to eradicate the nulls in the first place. I tend to check parameters for null when they are passed. Becuase I want code where nulls are the driven out, I beleive in handling null reference exceptions (such as the one that would occur on string.length) as exceptions as a null value is an unexpected value (ie indicates a bug). Or at least I attempt this :-)! That said, if I had to, I'd wrap the string.length as per my method. This has a few of benefits: developers don't have to worry about a special -1 value; No extra code is needed to handle the -1 value (null reference exceptions will, as described above) indicate a true bug ; the result can be displayed in a UI directly as end users would assume the -1 is a bug.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
-
This wasn't meant to be production level code, just a musing into the weird thought-processes of the original coder of this horror :-)!
0x3c0 wrote:
And if you get an zero-length string?
Heavily depends upon the context, but IMO 0 is better as, the need to differentiate between
nulland""when getting the length is rare (diffent for the object itself of course).0x3c0 wrote:
It's uncommon
Nope!
string foo = "";orstring foo = string.Empty;Are the best ways to declare a string if you don't already have a value for it. The last time I got into a discussion like this, it really dragged on.... http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3251798/NULLABLE-type.aspx[^]CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
keefb wrote:
Are the best ways to declare a string if you don't already have a value for it.
Of course that depends on the situation, but in general I disagree; I prefer null or uninitialized references. As a particular situation: What I was working on today involves parsing some user input. For one of the parameters it's OK for the user to not specify a value (a default value will be provided later), but an empty value is not allowed. (It's possible that I'll allow an empty value in the future.) I initialize the variable to null and only assign a value if the user provided a non-empty value. Another parameter is similar, but an empty value is allowed.
-
exactly, i find it very useful to create a Getter/Setter for each member (even if it is public) just in case something changes in the future and it needs to be recovered later. Example: if the length now has to adjust, for example, +5 in the current version, simply change the code on GetTranslation(...) { return object.translation+5; } and automatically all the code that refers to this translation is conveniently adjusted. This is no coding horror, but a wise implementation with future alterability. :)
PLEASE tell me you're joking!?!? ;)
-
Am I missing something? Why would you do this?
protected int GetTransactionLength(string transaction)
{
return transaction.Length;
}is this not less code
transaction.Length
than this?
GetTransactionLength(transaction)
This may seem small, but it's just pushed me over the edge. It comes from a program that should be simple and beautiful but it full if this sort of stuff, it’s driving me nutts!