Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In API documentation, and sometimes even used in discussions here on Stack Overflow, I sometimes see the pound (#) character used instead of the dot (.) as the separator between the class name and the method name. For example:
Settings#maxPageSize
I'm wondering what this usage means, and where it comes from?
Assuming you mean Ruby (which is the first language that I can think of with such conventions), it is explained here:
Why are methods in Ruby documentation preceded by a hash sign?
I've always thought that the distinction is that Settings.maxPageSize seems to imply that you can actually write just that (i.e. that it is a static method), and that the pound is there to denote that it is just a reference to a method, not a piece of code that you can execute.
Although I could be totally wrong about this =)
So for static methods, you could actually reference them Settings.maxPageSize, but for instance methods, you'd have the option of coming up with a new convention, such as Array#sort to denote that something special is going on, or, to achieve the same completeness, you'd have to write
myArray.sort // when myArray is of the type Array
EDIT
Amadan's reply seems to confirm my interpretation, with the exception that Settings.maxPageSize is not used for static methods either; rather, that would be Settings::maxPageSize, and . being reserved entirely for example code, which makes sense to me.
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 days ago.
Improve this question
I have a question that may seem silly, my english is not very good, I often don't know how to name variables or methods.
For example, There is a method, its function is to open a modal for creating users, I will name it openCreateUserModal, Its corresponding English sentence is "open create user modal", I think this is not grammatical in English because there are two verbs. Would it be better to name it openCreatingUserModal？Or the method name does not need to follow English grammar?
I want to get a rule for naming complex methods
openCreateUserModal is perfectly fine. It clearly conveys what the function does. Following the rules of english grammar is not important in this context as long as the function name clearly indicates what the function does.
Since you haven't mentioned any particular language, below is a source c# naming conventions. The principles are the same for any programming language.
https://csharp-book.softuni.org/Content/Chapter-10-methods/method-naming/method-naming.html
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 5 months ago.
Improve this question
I would like to find a clear way to demonstrate concretely that a variable of type string holds a 2-words data structure (at least as far as I understand it).
This demonstration is for didactic purposes.
So, as I know, a string is a 2 words data structure where one word holds the address of the underlying slice of bytes and the word holds the length.
Given a variable defined like this a := "a string literal", is there a way to view (or print) the content of the variable in its 2 words format so that people can actually see this 2-words structure?
is there a way to view (or print) the content of the variable in its 2 words format?
No, because this is an unspecified implementation detail.
If you are okay with code that might brake: Use reflect.StringHeader. See unsafe.Pointer point (6) on how to do this.
Best not to do this. As said: this is a deliberately hidden implementation detail.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have strings like:
NoMethodError: undefined method 'sort_by!' for #<Hash:0x00007f98f03c84e0>
These strings can contain n number of such parts: <Hash:0x00007f98f03c84e0>.
Here, 0x00007f98f03c84e0 is just a placeholder of memory reference. And also Hash is type of object of which this memory reference is. There is no need to discuss how these strings got formed but in the end i have strings which can have anything like <ClassName:MEM_REF> and i have to replace MEM_REF part.
Going back to my original example, I want to remove this memory ref part 0x00007f98f03c84e0 with any string of my liking. Again, 0x00007f98f03c84e0 is an example, it will be any arbitrary memory address.
Looking for an elegant way of doing this in ruby.
Try following regex in ruby console, should work: /:[0-9]x[0-9A-Za-z]*(?=>)/.
And to mask these refs with anything else, try input_string.gsub!(/:[0-9]x[0-9A-Za-z]*(?=>)/, "REPLACE_TEXT")
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
What do you think fellow programmers about using short functions vs using inline code?
Example with function:
//Check if all keys from $keys exist in $array
function functionName(array $array, array $keys) {
return array_diff($keys, array_keys($array));
}
functionName($mas,$keys);
vs. using just the code:
array_diff($keys, array_keys($mas));
I think that in your example, it's superfluous. There's no need to create an extra function call and add bytes to the filesize without good reason.
Also, the inline array_diff($keys, array_keys($mas)); is a lot easier to debug for fellow programmers, than looking through your code to find out exactly what functionName() does and where it is located.
It depends on what functionName actually is.
If you're using customerDetailsAreValid throughout your code and you suddenly have to add validation of $array['email'], you're going to be grateful for the separation of intent and implementation.
If on the other hand you're wrapping array_diff in the function diffArray there isn't much point.
I think clarity is a prime concern when writing logic you hope will be around for any amount of time.
In general, I abhor inline functions. I think they are lazy, promote spaghetti code, and in general exude a complete lack of concern for style/readability/clarity on the part of the developer.
Filesize - I find this argument very arbitrary. The js files are transmitted once and then cahced. In many cases, you find descriptive names, etc, (hopefully comments) that all add to file size. If size is very important , use a file minimizer that makes a file as tiny as possible.
Looking for a function? How about trying to figure out exactly what is going on in a voluminous docReady. CTL-F usually invokes a find facility.
I will grant that there can be simple cases where an inline function detracts little from the readability of the code. However, the inline approach will never be MORE CLEAR than the alternate separation of reference and implementation.
my two cents
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there (or was there ever) any non-trivial language that allows spaces in its variable names?
I am aware of the language Whitespace, but I'm interested in a language that was actually used for something besides demonstration.
I ask this out of pure curiosity.
In a way, yes. Several languages's variable names are really just keys to a higher-level object. Both Coldfusion and Javascript come to mind. In Javascript, you can write foo=bar, but what you've really said is:
window['foo'] = bar;
You could just as easily write
window['i haz a name'] = bar;
The various scopes in Coldfusion can also be treated as either a (dict|hash|associative array) or a name.
Of course, once you've created a name with whitespace, it's harder to access without using the hash lookup syntax.
TSQL will allow you to use whitespace in table and column names aslong as you have it between square braces [ ]
Theres a fantastic article on just what sql will let you get away with here http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/philfactor/archive/2009/08/14/evil-code.aspx