In this talk, Francesc Campoy has a slide with Go's 25 keywords, and apparently 5 'secret' keywords.
What are the 5 secret keywords in Go?
The following 5 keywords are ignored:
notwithstanding
thetruthofthematter
despiteallobjections
whereas
insofaras
Yes, really.
Update: As Deleplace notes in the comments, the easter egg keywords have been removed. It looks like this commit took them out during a major parser update. If you try to run a program containing one of these tokens, you'll find they're treated as ordinary identifiers now.
There are some easter egg keywords in the lexer (lex.go) that are not in the official documentation, and hence are ignored by the compiler.
Here they are:
notwithstanding
thetruthofthematter
despiteallobjections
whereas
insofaras
You can report to this conversation for more details.
It looks like the secret keywords will be removed in v1.10. See here.
For anyone curious, here is the commit which introduced the keywords.
In the latest code review I was asked, why did I change the method name from GetHDRFrame to GetHdrFrame, while HDR is an abbreviation. I'm pretty sure there was such recommendation in Code Complete: when using abbreviations in CamelCase names, treat them as regular words. But I cannot find the place where it is written. Could somebody give me an exact phrase in Code Complete, where it is stated?
There is a similar question with the useful links to MS rules, but I'm looking for Code Complete quote.
As far as I've been able to determine, there is no such advice in Code Complete. But it does say:
People have managed to have zealous, blistering debates over fine
points such as whether the first character in a name should be
capitalized (TotalPoints vs. totalPoints), but as long as you and
your team are consistent, it won't make much difference.
And that may help you avoid such nitpicking in future code reviews. ;-)
Hi I am using poedit editor and i am not able to edit the original string column. I want to edit few words on original string column. Thanks in Advance
(Oh well, I'll answer it here as well, for the benefit of the people who may find this post. But you won't like the answer any more than when I replied to you yesterday, when you asked on the Poedit mailing and in personal email to me.)
Short answer is: you can't. Read the introductory sections of the GNU gettext manual -- it explains the basic concepts of gettext translations very well, from both the programmer's and translator's perspectives, and it's clear you don't understand the concept of gettext.
Really, I mean it: please, please, read at the lest the intro part of the manual. The fine folks from the GNU gettext project put a lot of effort into it and if you've spent 5-10 minutes with it, you wouldn't need to ask this question.
Longer version:
Gettext uses text strings (typically in English) in the source code as translation keys. And it has tools to extract the strings and put them into a PO file. This ensures that only strings that are actually used are translated.
Changing the original string (called msgid -- it really is an ID) makes no sense. You would then have a translation of a string that is never used in the source code and so the translation would be guaranteed to never be used. Way to waste the translator's time, wouldn't it?
Want to "edit a few words"? Edit them in the source code. That's the only way that can ever work with gettext.
What Vaclav is saying is very true. If you change the actual source string, the system won't read it.
In Poedit, simply select the string from the long list that you want to edit then you will see that string in the Source Text at the bottom of the screen. Then in the Translation box, enter your preferred wording. Don't forget to include any variable aswell otherwise your change won't work.
What Vaclav is saying is very false.
You can change it. Open the file with notepad. Ctrl + F the original text that you want to change. Change it, and then save it. Then open the file with po edit again, and you will see the changed text.
Some of my colleagues use special comments on their bug fixes, for example:
// 2008-09-23 John Doe - bug 12345
// <short description>
Does this make sense?
Do you comment bug fixes in a special way?
Please let me know.
I don't put in comments like that, the source control system already maintains that history and I am already able to log the history of a file.
I do put in comments that describe why something non-obvious is being done though. So if the bug fix makes the code less predictable and clear, then I explain why.
Over time these can accumulate and add clutter. It's better to make the code clear, add any comments for related gotchas that may not be obvious and keep the bug detail in the tracking system and repository.
I tend not to comment in the actual source because it can be difficult to keep up to date.
However I do put linking comments in my source control log and issue tracker. e.g. I might do something like this in Perforce:
[Bug-Id] Problem with xyz dialog.
Moved sizing code to abc and now
initialise later.
Then in my issue tracker I will do something like:
Fixed in changelist 1234.
Moved sizing code to abc and now
initialise later.
Because then a good historic marker is left. Also it makes it easy if you want to know why a particular line of code is a certain way, you can just look at the file history. Once you've found the line of code, you can read my commit comment and clearly see which bug it was for and how I fixed it.
Only if the solution was particularly clever or hard to understand.
I usually add my name, my e-mail address and the date along with a short description of what I changed, That's because as a consultant I often fix other people's code.
// Glenn F. Henriksen (<email#company.no) - 2008-09-23
// <Short description>
That way the code owners, or the people coming in after me, can figure out what happened and they can get in touch with me if they have to.
(yes, unfortunately, more often than not they have no source control... for internal stuff I use TFS tracking)
While this may seem like a good idea at the time, it quickly gets out of hand. Such information can be better captured using a good combination of source control system and bug tracker. Of course, if there's something tricky going on, a comment describing the situation would be helpful in any case, but not the date, name, or bug number.
The code base I'm currently working on at work is something like 20 years old and they seem to have added lots of comments like this years ago. Fortunately, they stopped doing it a few years after they converted everything to CVS in the late 90s. However, such comments are still littered throughout the code and the policy now is "remove them if you're working directly on that code, but otherwise leave them". They're often really hard to follow especially if the same code is added and removed several times (yes, it happens). They also don't contain the date, but contain the bug number which you'd have to go look up in an archaic system to find the date, so nobody does.
Comments like this are why Subversion lets you type a log entry on every commit. That's where you should put this stuff, not in the code.
I do it if the bug fix involves something that's not straightforward, but more often than not if the bugfix requires a long explanation I take it as a sign that the fix wasn't designed well. Occasionally I have to work around a public interface that can't change so this tends to be the source of these kinds of comments, for example:
// <date> [my name] - Bug xxxxx happens when the foo parameter is null, but
// some customers want the behavior. Jump through some hoops to find a default value.
In other cases the source control commit message is what I use to annotate the change.
Whilst I do tend to see some comments on bugs inside the code at work, my personal preference is linking a code commit to one bug. When I say one I really mean one bug. Afterwards you can always look at the changes made and know which bug these were applied to.
That style of commenting is extremely valuable in a multi-developer environment where there is a range of skills and / or business knowledge across the developers (e.g. - everywhere).
To the experienced knowledgable developer the reason for a change may be obvious, but for newer developers that comment will make them think twice and do more investigation before messing with it. It also helps them learn more about how the system works.
Oh, and a note from experience about the "I just put that in the source control system" comments:
If it isn't in the source, it didn't happen.
I can't count the number of times the source history for projects has been lost due to inexperience with the source control software, improper branching models etc. There is
only one place the change history cannot be lost - and that's in the source file.
I usually put it there first, then cut 'n paste the same comment when I check it in.
No I don't, and I hate having graffiti like that litter the code. Bug numbers can be tracked in the commit message to the version control system, and by scripts to push relevant commit messages into the bug tracking system. I do not believe they belong in the source code, where future edits will just confuse things.
Often a comment like that is more confusing, as you don't really have context as to what the original code looked like, or the original bad behavior.
In general, if your bug fix now makes the code run CORRECTLY, just simply leave it without comments. There is no need to comment correct code.
Sometimes the bug fix makes things look odd, or the bug fix is testing for something that is out of the ordinary. Then it might be appropriate to have a comment - usually the comment should refer back to the "bug number" from your bug database. For example, you might have a comment that says "Bug 123 - Account for odd behavior when the user is in 640 by 480 screen resolution".
If you add comments like that after a few years of maintaining the code you will have so many bug fix comments you wouldn't be able to read the code.
But if you change something that look right (but have a subtle bug) into something that is more complicated it's nice to add a short comment explaining what you did, so that the next programmer to maintain this code doesn't change it back because he (or she) thinks you over-complicated things for no good reason.
No. I use subversion and always enter a description of my motivation for committing a change. I typically don't restate the solution in English, instead I summarize the changes made.
I have worked on a number of projects where they put comments in the code when bug fixes were made. Interestingly, and probably not coincidentally, these were projects which either didn't use any sort of source control tool or were mandated to follow this sort of convention by fiat from management.
Quite honestly, I don't really see the value in doing this for most situations. If I want to know what changed, I'll look at the subversion log and the diff.
Just my two cents.
If the code is corrected, the comment is useless and never interesting to anybody - just noise.
If the bug isn't solved, the comment is wrong. Then it makes sense. :) So just leave such comments if you didn't really solved the bug.
To locate ones specific comment we use DKBUGBUG - which means David Kelley's fix and reviewer can easily identity, Ofcourse we will add Date and other VSTS bug tracking number etc along with this.
Don't duplicate meta data that your VCS is going to keep for you. Dates and names should be in the automatically added by the VCS. Ticket numbers, manager/user names that requested the change, etc should be in VCS comments, not the code.
Rather than this:
//$DATE $NAME $TICKET
//useful comment to the next poor soul
I would do this:
//useful comment to the next poor soul
If the code is on a live platform, away from direct access to the source control repository, then I will add comments to highlight the changes made as a part of the fix for a bug on the live system.
Otherwise, no the message that you enter at checkin should contain all the info you need.
cheers,
Rob
When I make bugfixes/enhancements in third party libraries/component I often make some comments. This makes it easier find and move the changes if I need to use a newer version of the library/component.
In my own code I seldom comments bugfixes.
I don't work on multi-person projects, but I sometimes add comments about a certain bug to a unit test.
Remember, there's no such thing as bugs, just insufficient testing.
Since I do as much TDD as possible (everything else is social suicide, because every other method will force you to work endless hours), I seldomly fix bugs.
Most of the time I add special remarks like this one to the code:
// I KNOW this may look strange to you, but I have to use
// this special implementation here - if you don't understand that,
// maybe you are the wrong person for the job.
Sounds harsh, but most people who call themselves "developers" deserve no other remarks.