Focused on clarity...



  • Everything in the project is this explicit.  This is from a class that simply wraps a boolean value.  Oh, the wonders of template code!

    public string BoolString
    {
    get
    {
    string boolString;

    try
    {
    if (this.m_value == true)
    boolString = "1";
    else
    boolString = "0";

    return boolString;
    }
    catch (Exception e)
    {
    throw e;
    }
    finally
    {
    }
    }
    }

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.



  • @djork said:

    Everything in the project is this explicit.  This is from a class that simply wraps a boolean value.  Oh, the wonders of template code!

    public string BoolString
    {
    get
    {
    string boolString;

    try
    {
    if (this.m_value == true)
    boolString = "1";
    else
    boolString = "0";

    return boolString;
    }
    catch (Exception e)
    {
    throw e;
    }
    finally
    {
    }
    }
    }

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

    Yeah... but then do a "throw e"... 

    Looks for me like someone rigidly followed the spec without having the sightliest, tiniest clue WHY those rules are there.



  • @djork said:

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

     

    Is it 0 or is it 1? I can't tell. What are these question marks, quotes, zeroes, ones, semi-colons, ARE YOU WRITING IN GIBBERISH??? Logic overload dude! 



  • @dlikhten said:

    @djork said:

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

     

    Is it 0 or is it 1? I can't tell. What are these question marks, quotes, zeroes, ones, semi-colons, ARE YOU WRITING IN GIBBERISH??? Logic overload dude! 

    That was, of course, meant ironically. 



  • @djork said:

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

    If you ever wanted to make the UI display "true" and "false" instead of 1 and 0 for all booleans, yes that would be a pain in the arse.  you could take your chances with find and replace, but be careful.



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    @djork said:

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

    If you ever wanted to make the UI display "true" and "false" instead of 1 and 0 for all booleans, yes that would be a pain in the arse.  you could take your chances with find and replace, but be careful.

    I don't get it.  I'm advocating using "?:" for the body of the method, not in place of calling this method.



  • I especially like that empty finally{} clause.

     



  • What, 6 replies and no "FILE_NOT_FOUND" references?

     

     



  • @wgh said:

    What, 6 replies and no "FILE_NOT_FOUND" references?

    MEME_NOT_FOUND

    Happy?



  • @PSWorx said:

    @dlikhten said:
    @djork said:

    Because return m_value ? "1" : "0"; is too tricky.

     

    Is it 0 or is it 1? I can't tell. What are these question marks, quotes, zeroes, ones, semi-colons, ARE YOU WRITING IN GIBBERISH??? Logic overload dude! 

    That was, of course, meant ironically. 


    We sincerely hope.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.