coding-style

问题 I am using jQuery UI for an in-house application. I am looking for an easy way to remove all style information provided by jQuery UI on a given widget instance. I'm open to really anything, but a reusable javascript solution would be perfect. It's absolutely imperative that no functionality is lost. the most important thing is that all background-images are removed, I'm ok with keeping the layout styles. ideally something like... $tabs = $("#someElement").tabs(); $tabs.removeStyles(); But I'm

问题 I am trying to apply default styling for all the listViews from style.xml Please note at some places I am using nested listViews. In style.xml <style name="Theme.MyTheme" parent="Theme.Sherlock.Light.ForceOverflow"> <item name="android:windowContentOverlay">@null</item> <item name="android:listViewStyle">@style/awesomeListViewStyle</item> </style> <style name="awesomeListViewStyle" parent="@android:style/Widget.ListView"> <item name="android:fadingEdge">none</item> <item name="android

问题 I'm using boost's regex library, and I'm finding that determining if a named match is found and then using that information is a little annoying. To detect a named match, I'd like to do this: typedef boost::match_result<string::const_iterator> matches_t; typedef matches_t::const_reference match_t; boost::regex re("(?:(?<type1>aaaa)|(?<type2>bbbb)" /*...*/ "|(?<typeN>abcdefg)"); string str(SOME_STRING); matches_t what; boost::match_flag_type flags = boost::match_default; if(regex_search(str

问题 I'm tempted to add a suffix like "Ex" to differentiate methods (with similar signatures) that throw Exceptions from those that don't. Is there such a convention? 回答1: Yes, you name them the same as methods that don't. Isn't the exception specification enough? Edit: If you have similar methods that throw/not throw, I recommend the Parse / TryParse pattern ( Parse being replaced by the operation). .NET Framework uses it frequently ( Dictionary<T,K>.TryGetValue , Monitor.TryEnter , int.TryParse

问题 The following definition of MyStruct (tag MyStruct) and type definition of type MyStruct seems perfectly compillable by gcc (at least 4.6.2) and by g++. typedef struct MyStruct { int a; int b; } MyStruct; My question is: is it somehow error-prone (in C and/or C++) or bad style to use tag name the same as the type name? According to http://www.eetimes.com/discussion/programming-pointers/4024450/Tag-vs-Type-Names it is not: I've never understood why they use different names for the tag and the

问题 I'm maintaining some code and have found the following pattern a lot: var isMale = (row["Gender"].ToString() == "M") ? true : false; instead of this: var isMale = (row["Gender"].ToString() == "M"); Is there any reason why anyone would do this? Does anyone think the former is more readable or clearer? Is there some sort of old C "gotcha" that this is a hold-over from? 回答1: A valid reason? No. It's usually produced by people who don't really understand that a condition is also in itself an

问题 What is the preferred method of checking an object's class in R? (1) is.data.frame(df) (2) class(df) == 'data.frame' (3) 'data.frame' %in% class(df) 回答1: I would say inherits(df,"data.frame") or is(df,"data.frame") among other things, #2 in your list can fail because (as you suggest in #3) class(df) can have length > 1. ( is.data.frame is nice, but not all classes have is. methods: see methods("is") ) 回答2: For me it'd be: is.data.frame(df) Is a clearer option to use in conditions. Also, is

问题 I'm trying to find a Python coding style enforcer (tool, not person!). Any recommendations? 回答1: I only know pylint, but it is not an automatic code formatter, rather a marking tool. 回答2: Don't forget PEP8, both the PEP8 style guide (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/) and the tool Not a lint like tool, but keeps your style in line with the main python community. yapf (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/yapf) is super cool, reformats your code to be pep8 compliant. Very handy 回答3: pyflakes is

问题 if (false == x) { ...} as opposed to: if (!x) { ... } and if (false == f1()) { ...} as opposed to: if (!f1()) { ... } I think the if(false == ... version is more readable. Do you agree, or have another trick you can propose? Will it be just as fast? Thanks. This is why I do not like !x: if (25 == a->function1(12345, 6789) && 45 == b->function1(12345, 6789) && !c->someOtherFunction(123)) { ... } The following seems better: if (25 == a->function1(12345, 6789) && 45 == b->function1(12345, 6789)

问题 Here is a fragment of code: bool EqualsA(const Foo& a, const Foo& b) { return a == b; } bool EqualsB(const Foo& a, const Foo& b) { const bool result = a == b; return result; } int MethodA() { return GetValue() * GetOtherValue(); } int MethodB() { const int result = GetValue() * GetOtherValue(); return result; } I wanted to know if there is any difference in returning values in these two different ways (instant return or store result in a variable). I think that storing is better for debugging