This seems like an awfully basic question, but I still can't find an answer for it.
In VBScript, is there any harm in declaring the same scalar variable with the Dim statement more than once?
I'm working on some related projects and developing some code pieces I'd like to reuse. However, I'm slightly concerned if there's a problem with using code that uses the same variable name twice, like so:
Dim i
for i = 1 to Count
'* doin' somethin' here
next
Dim i
for i = 1 to UnrelatedOtherCount
'* doin' somethin' different yo
next
It's not just iteration loop variables, either; I may have multiple places in a script where regexes are used. If my script uses two sections of code being re-used, and each of them uses a "patternString" variable and starts by declaring the variables:
'* first section of code from the folder
Dim objPersonRegex, patternString
Set objPersonRegex = new RegExp
...
'* a completely different section of code
Dim objBuildingRegex, patternString
Set objBuildingRegex = new RegExp
My instinct is to say that it shouldn't be a problem, that Dim just creates a variable of the given name if it doesn't already exist, and if it does, just goes on because what it was told to do is done. But is this actually the case? In case it matters, these are scripts running on Windows Script Host.
(To clarify what I'm worried about, I'm not worried at all about the value of the variable getting clobbered. If I need to retain the value of the variable, I'll save it in a different variable, one with a unique name.)
All my attempts to look up the answer myself have failed; they only return information about declaring more than one variable on a line, and using ReDim on arrays.
Is it harmful to Dim a variable more than once?
It is impossible to Dim a variable more than once. Neither not using Option Explicit nor (mis)using On Error Resume Next will get more than one Dim for the same variable (name) in the same compilation unit past the 'compiler'.
Dim doesn't just create then re-create the variable. It allocates a memory address for it.
So, assuming you are coding with OPTION EXPLICIT turned on, it won't let you even do that.
However... What you're showing there as an example is not declaring the variable again. Not the same way, at any rate. That's not "dimmed". It's just temporarily used and thrown away when it's done. So, in that respect, you are doing it the right way.
If you were to create a new variable for every little thing that ran in a loop, when they don't interefere with each other, that becomes rather inefficient.
In the first example, I would say that it is harmful, because it means you're coding with OPTION EXPLICIT OFF. Don't do that. Keep that option on.
For the second example, if they really are different sections of code, in different "namespaces" (as much as vbscript has that concept... different modules, I guess), you're probably okay. However, that code is similar enough that I would look into writing a method that does whatever it is you're about to do. Then just call the method.
However, if snippets in the second example are in the same module, it would be a problem... partly for the reason in my first paragraph, and partly because it can lead to a very specific kind of bug. Imagine you make a mistake in your code, where it's possible somehow in the last sample for patternString to go unassigned. If it's a completely new variable, that results in an error, such that we know something went wrong. With the current code, it's possible to run the code with old pattern. This is worse than an error, because it may cause the program to do things like make unexpected changes to a database, or show sensitive data to the wrong user.
Related
Let's say I'm running a bash script under set -u. Obviously, for any given variable, I need to ensure that it's set. Something like:
foo=
However, if I want to keep any pre-existing value that might be set by my caller, this would overwrite it. A simple solution to this problem is to do this instead:
: ${foo:=}
But I have some code that does this (more complicated) way:
foo=${foo+$foo}
Now, I know this second way works. My question is, is there any advantage to it over the first way? I am assuming there is but now can't remember what it was. Can anyone either think of an edge case (no matter how obscure) where these two constructs would behave differently, or provide a compelling explanation that they can't?
I can't think of any case where they would differ. They're just alternative logic for the same thing.
The meaning of the simple solution is: If foo is unset/empty, set it to the empty string.
The meaning of your code is: If foo is set, set it to itself, otherwise set it to an empty string.
Your code seems like more work -- why set something to itself? Just do nothing and it will keep its value. That's what the simpler version does.
You can also simplify the simple solution further by removing the : in the parameter expansion.
: ${foo=}
This makes it only test whether foo is unset. If it's set to the empty string, no default needs to be assigned.
My question is, is there any advantage to it over the first way?
Maybe this is subjective, but one advantage is that it clearly looks like a variable assignment. Anyone who sees the command foo=${foo+$foo} will immediately understand that it sets the variable foo (even if they need to look up the ${parameter+word} notation to figure out what it sets it to); but someone who sees the command : ${foo:=} is likely to completely miss that it has the side-effect of modifying foo. (The use of : is definitely a hint that something might be happening, since : itself does nothing; but it's not as blatant.)
And of course, someone searching the script for foo= will find the former but not the latter.
That said, I would personally write this as either foo="${foo-}" or foo="${foo:-}", which still makes clear that it sets foo, but is a bit simpler than foo=${foo+$foo}. I also think that readers are more likely to be familiar with ${parameter-word} than ${parameter+word}, but I haven't asked around to check.
I'm wondering what benefit discriminating between local and global variables provides. It seems to me that if everything were made a global variable, there would be a lot less confusion.
Wouldn't declaring everything a global variable result in fewer errors because one wouldn't mistakenly call a local variable in a global instance, thereby encountering fewer errors?
Where is my logic wrong on this?
Some of this boils down to good coding practices. Keeping variables local also means it becomes simpler to share code from one application to another without having to worry about code conflicts. While its simpler to make everything global, getting into the habit of only using global variables when you actually have to will force you to code more efficiently and will make your code more structured.
I think your key oversight is thinking that an error telling you a local variable doesn't exist is a bad thing - it isn't. You've made a mistake and ruby is telling you so. This type of mistake is usually easy to fix: you've misspelled something or you're using something that you forgot to create.
Global variables everywhere might remove those errors but they would replace them with a far harder set of errors to reason about: accidentally using a variable that another bit of code is using. Imagine if every time you called a function (one of your own or a standard library one or one from a gem) you had to check which global variables it might change (and which functions it called, since it might also change global variables) If you make a mistake then you might get an error message (if the class of the object in the variable changes enough) but often you would just silently get incorrect results (if the value of a variable you were using changes unexpectedly).
In general global variables are much harder to work with and people avoid them when possible.
If all variables are global, every line of code in every program (including those which haven't been written yet) written by every programmer on the planet (including those who haven't been born yet or are already dead) must universally, uniquely agree on the names of variables. If you use a variable name that someone else on a different continent two years from now will also use, both of your programs will break, when used together.
In relationship to this thread, this is also what i am kind of trying to do but i have had a bit more leeway in this.
My problem is i am currently working on a defining program (for my ti-89 titanium) to write out the definitions of variables. However, considering i had indefinite amounts of variables to add, i thought using the define function over and over again would waste memory and processing power. So my thinking was Save the variable to another variable to be defined in a later portion of the program.
prompt x
lbl x_d_r
x_d_r->q:Goto def
lbl def
define expr(q)[1]=x
where x_d_r has no assigned value. So the program was supposed to use the defined string as a list value to be x. However the obvious error came about.
So i played around on the home screen and program screen for a bit and came across entry(1) and ans(1). See back on the ti-83 (or 84) i could basically go (If i remember correctly)
disp q*1
x->ans(1)
However ans(1) on a ti-89 titanium is based upon the last answer submitted to the homescreen. Even then, ans(1) or entry(1) gets replaced in the program by just that. Lucky me, i found a way to avoid this.
Prgm
expr(char(120)&char(22)&char(97)&char(110)&char(115)&char(40)&char(49)&char(41))
EndPrgm
For those that do not know, this is simply expressing x->ans(1) which is a way for the code to transmit ans(1) within a program without removing the code to say so.
But it still does not work as a value needs to be sent to the home screen in order for it to record properly. This is one of those advantages that the ti-84 or ti-83 i wish it still had on the titanium. So i have spent some time searching for ways how i can display values of q to the home screen from within a program.
So far i learned that functions when used straight from the home screen return the value of q to the same place. However i have no way of implementing this in an actual program as the function does not wish to transmit the value to the home screen, and its rather useless within the program.
Secondly i have found this website which details methods of such ways to return values to the homescreen. While method 1 seems to hold promise, i do not seem to have any way of accessing that folder/program. Most likely because it is one that he made and has not shared its location on the pdf. I do like the expr("q"&":stop"), but q is not evaluated out so maybe i would have to rework it somehow.
While this was happening, i thought some other ideas could be using the paste key within a program but i have no idea how to implement stuff found from getkey let alone how the second and grab buttons factor in.
Or i could somehow have the ans(1) look to someplace else other than the home screen. Preferably to the i/0 screen but maybe to some other list or data matrix.
Anybody have any ideas on how to relay a value to the homescreen be it through function, pasting or something, and have the program i defined earlier define it as a value?
UPDATE+1
Ok i am beginning to question if maybe i am making it more complex than it needs to be...
After all, i am only going for just x->x_d_r[1], which is already defined elsewhere. So does it beat x->q:Goto def
Lbl def
Define expr(q)=x
(Or something like that which calls to a history recording program to define values?)
in terms of processing speed and memory count?
Got it. See here for what i was really trying to do.
So as an explanation of what the main problem was again, i wanted to be able to post a string value of q to be defined by another value of x.
The expr( function is quite a powerful tool on the ti-89 and like the person in that other forum, underestimated it. See what the person was trying to do was
InputStr "Function:",f(x)
expr(f)→f(x)
And was later answered by reworking it as
InputStr "function", n
expr(n & "->f(x)")
The expression tool just simply expresses what is in the parentheses. So during break periods in school today, i reworked in my head thinking "What if i tried rewriting the parenthesis out so it reads Expr("x->"&String(q))?
Lo-and-behold it works. Tested it with the fuller version of define to get
td()
Prgm
Prompt X
x_d_r->q
expr("x->"&string(q)&"[1]")
Disp x_d_r[1]
Delvar x_d_r
EndPrgm
Tried, tested and true. Works all the way. See what i think is happening is that anything that is not within the quotes is evaluated immediately in an expression while the the quoted objects are simply expressed and added later in response to the "&" key. Furthermore it makes sense if i was to describe it more with english; "Express x to be stored into the string of q's respective table".
While for variables sake i would have to look into ways to make x_d_r local only to the program without compensating the fact that the x_d_r portion is not considered a store value when executing x_d_r->q. But knowing what i know now i could probably do
expr("q"+"x_d_r"&->a)
expr("x->"&string(a)-"q"&"[1]")
In order to bypass that problem.
Very simple question that is apparently impossible to find a decent answer to: How can I make Visual Basic 6 stop changing my ^##*ing variable casing!?!
I know that the general opinion of a great many VB users is that this "feature" is actually quite helpful, but I doubt that they use it much with any source control system. This is absolutely INFURIATING when you are trying to collaborate on a project of any significant size with several other developers. If ignored, you produce thousands of false-positive "changes" to your files (even ones with no actual code changes!) that pollute the revision history and make it near impossible in some cases to locate the actual change that took place.
If you don't ignore it (like my office, where we have been forced to implement a "no unneeded case change" policy), you spend 5x the time you would normally on each commit because you have to carefully revert out VB's "corrections" on every file, sometimes reverting hundreds of lines to put in a one line change.
Surely there must be a setting, plugin, hack, etc. out there that can remove this unwanted "feature"? I am willing to take any method I can get as long as it doesn't require me to pick through piles of phantom diffs. And to squash a couple of complaints up front: No, I can't turn off case detection in my diff tool, that's not the point. No, we can't just make the case changes globally. We're working with hundreds of thousands of LOC being worked on by multiple developers spanning many years of development. Synchronizing that is not feasible from a business standpoint. And, finally: No, we cannot upgrade to VB.net or port to another language (as much as I would love to).
(And yes, I am just a tiny bit peeved at the moment. Can you tell? My apologies, but this is costing me time and my company money, and I don't find that acceptable.)
Depending on your situation adding
#If False Then
Dim CorrectCase
#End If
might help.
Here is a real world scenario and how we solved it for our 350k LOC VB6 project.
We are using Janus Grid and at some point all the code lines which referenced DefaultValue property of JSColumn turned to defaultValue. This was an opportunity to debug the whole IDE nuisance.
What I found was that a reference to MSXML has just been added and now the IDE picks up ISchemaAttributes' defaultValue property before the Janus Grid typelib.
After some experiments I found out that the IDE collects "registered" identifiers in the following order:
Referenced Libraries/Projects from Project->References in the order they are listed
Controls from Project->Components (in unknown order)
Source Code
So the simple fix we did was to create a dummy class/interface with methods that hold our proper casing. Since we already had a project-wide typelib we referenced from every project before anything other typelib, this was painless to do.
Here is part of the IDL for our IUcsVbIntellisenseFix interface:
[
odl,
uuid(<<guid_here>>),
version(1.0),
dual,
nonextensible,
oleautomation
]
interface IUcsVbIntellisenseFix : IDispatch {
[id(1)] HRESULT DefaultValue();
[id(2)] HRESULT Selector();
[id(3)] HRESULT Standalone();
...
}
We added a lot of methods to IUcsVbIntellisenseFix, some of them named after enum items we used to misspell and whatever we wanted to fix. The same can be done with a simple VB class in a common library (ActiveX DLL) that's referenced from every project.
This way our source code at some point converged to proper casing because upon check-out the IDE actually fixed the casing as per IUcsVbIntellisenseFix casing. Now we can't misspell enums, methods or properties even if we try to.
SIMPLE WAY: Dim each variable in the case that you want. Otherwise, VBA will change it in a way that is not understandable.
Dim x, X1, X2, y, Yy as variant
in a subroutine will change ALL cases to those in the Dim statement
I can sympathise. Luckily we're allowed to turn off case sensitivity in our version control diff tool!
It seems the VB6 IDE automatic case-correction occasionally changes case in variable declarations and references, perhaps depending on the order in which modules are listed in the VBP file? But the IDE doesn't tell you that the file needs to be saved. So the problem only shows up when you saved the file because of another edit. We briefly tried to prevent this by checking out all the files in a project and setting the case carefully, but it didn't go away.
I suppose you could list the variable names that are affected - the usual suspects are one letter names like "I", "X" and "Y", perhaps because they are used in standard event handlers like MouseDown. Then write an add-in that'll search for all declarations " As" and force the case to upper. Run the add-in on your modules before you check them in. You might be able to trigger the add-in to run automatically when you save in VB6.
EDIT: Something I've just thought of: adapt Fred's answer. From now on, every time you check in a file, add a block at the top to establish canonical case for the usual suspects. If nothing else, it's easier than reverting hundreds of lines by hand. Eventually you will have this block in every file & maybe then the problem will stop happening.
#If False Then
Dim I, X, Y ' etc '
#End If
I standardised the case across the codebase, normally by using the examples above (Dim CorrectCase), and removing it again.
I then triggered VB to save EVERY file, by doing a case sensitive search/replace of "End" with "End" (no functional change, but enough to get VB to resave).
Once that was done, I could then do a single commit to standardise the case, making it MUCH easier to keep on top of it at a later date.
In this example VB6 was changing the case of the following line following a typo I made when referencing a library: -
Dim MyRecordset As ADODB.REcordset
Ugly, and now every other instance of an ADODB.REcordset thus acquired the new misspelling. I fixed this as follows: -
Type in a new declaration as follows
Dim VB6CasingSucks AS ADODB, Recordset
Note the comma and space after ADODB. Hit [ENTER] for VB6 to check the line.
At this point all instances of REcordset change back to Recordset.
Delete your new declaration.
I don't know if this fix will help with enums/other variable names.
Specifically for controlling the case of enum values, there is a VB6 IDE add-in which may be helpful. Enums seem to have a slightly unique version of this problem.
As described in the link below:
The VB6 IDE has an annoying quirk when it comes to the case of Enum
members. Unlike with other identifiers, the IDE doesn't enforce the
case of an Enum member as it was declared in the Enum block. That
occasionally causes an Enum member that was manually written to lose
its original case, unless a coder typed it carefully enough.
...
However, if a project contains a lot of Enums and/or a particular Enum
has a lot of members, redeclaring the members in each of them can get
quite tedious fast. ...
Ref: http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?778109-VB6-modLockEnumCase-bas-Enforce-Case-of-Enums
...load and unload the add-in as needed via the Add-In Manager
dialog box. Usage is as simple as selecting the entire Enum block,
right-clicking and then choosing the "Lock Enum Case" context menu
item.
I have a similar problem:
in a bas module there I wrote :
Private sub bla_bla()
Dim K as integer
End Sub
so in a class module the Dim k as integer will automatically be replaced by IDE become 'Dim K as integer' <-- it's not logical but then:
I correct the bas module become:
Private sub bla_bla()
Dim k as integer
End Sub
then magically the problem in the class module was solved (still be k and not automatically replaced by IDE become K). Sorry I'm poor in English
I don't think there's any to do it. The IDE will change the case of the variable name to whatever it is when it's declared. But, honestly, back in the day I worked on several large VB6 projects and never found this to be a problem. Why are people on your development team constantly changing variable declarations? It seems like you have not established a clear variable naming policy that you enforce. I know your upset, so no offense, but it might be your policies that are lacking in this regard.
Unfortunately, according to this SO thread, alternate VB6 IDEs are hard to come by. So, your best bet is to solve this problem via policy. Or move to VB.NET. :)
Wow. I've spent a lot of time programming in VB6 and I have no idea what you're on about. The only thing I can think you're referring to is that intellisense will change the capitalization of variable names to match their declarations. If you're complaining about that, I would have to wonder why the hell they've been entered any other way to begin with. And if that is your problem, no, there's no way to disable it that I'm aware of. I'd suggest you, in one go, check out every file, make sure the caps on the declarations and uses of variables all match and check back in.
This is a coding style questions:-
Here is the case
Dim obj1 as new ClassA
' Some lines of code which does not uses obj1
Something.Pass(obj1) ' Only line we are using obj1
Or should we directly initiaize the object when passing it as an argument?
Something.new(new ClassA())
If you're only using the object in that method call, it's probably better to just pass in "new ClassA()" directly into the call. This way, you won't have an extra variable lying around, that someone might mistakenly try to use in the future.
However, for readability, and debugging it's often useful to create the temporary object and pass it in. This way, you can inspect the variable in the debugger before it gets passed into the method.
Your question asks "should we create objects"; both your examples create an object.
There is not logically any difference at all between the two examples. Giving a name to an object allows it to be referred to in more than one place. If you aren't doing that, it's much clearer to not give it a name, so someone maintaining the code can instantly see that the object is only passed to one other method.
Generally speaking, I would say no, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, but it does sound like there may be some blurring of responsibilities between your calling function, the called function, and the temporary object. Perhaps a bit of refactoring is in order.
I personally prefer things to be consistent, and to make my life easier (what I consider making my life easier may not be what you consider making your life easier... so do with this advice what you will).
If you have something like this:
o = new Foo();
i = 7
bar(o, i, new Car());
then you have an inconsistency (two parameters are variables, the other is created on the fly). To be consistent you would either:
always pass things as variables
always pass things created on the fly
only one of those will work (the first one!).
There are also practical aspects to it as well: making a variable makes debugging easier.
Here are some examples:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
foo(nextLine());
}
If you want to display the next line for debugging you now need to change it to:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
line = nextLine();
display(line);
foo(line);
}
It would be easier (and safer) to have made the variable up front. It is safer because you are less likely to accidentally call nextLine() twice (by forgetting to take it out of the foo call).
You can also view the value of "line" in a debugger without having to go into the "foo" method.
Another one that can happen is this:
foo(b.c.d()); // in Java you get a NullPointerException on this line...
was "b" or "c" the thing that was null? No idea.
Bar b;
Car c;
int d;
b = ...;
c = b.c; // NullPointException here - you know b was null
d = c.d(); // NullPointException here - you know c was null
foo(d); // can view d in the debugger without having to go into foo.
Some debuggers will let you highlight "d()" and see what it outputs, but that is dangerous if "d()" has side effects as the debugger will wind up calling "d()" each time you get the value via the debugger).
The way I code for this does make it more verbose (like this answer :-) but it also makes my life easier if things are not working as expected - I spend far less time wondering what went wrong and I am also able to fix bugs much faster than before I adopted this way of doing things.
To me the most important thing when programming is to be consistent. If you are consistent then the code is much easier to get through because you are not constantly having to figure out what is going on, and your eyes get drawn to any "oddities" in the code.