The Weird and The Wonderful

0x01AA wrote:

Dont't blame the people, try to help them

0x01AA wrote:

If I Review some of my 30 year old code, a lot of time I'm asking me if I would know the guy who wrote this s**t

Quote:

Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.

comment said:

//I know this will work

// Note to self: do not make notes to self in comments in code.

raddevus wrote:

// Note to self: do not make notes to self in comments in code.

//You are not expected to understand this.

#region Note To Future Developer
/* NOTE TO FUTURE DEVELOPER */

/* You might look at below line of code and wonder why this is done this way. You are already
 checking for order type in download process. Business has done politician level backflip  on the last day of UAT
 on the original logic and wanted to check if they have created 2 COs with same job number and first is already processed
 next one needs to be regen. Download would have it as a new code.
 If this requirement was known from the beginning this logic would have been totally different.
 This logic makes download process pretty redundant as you may have called APIs when CO is scanned and get data from M3
 and do rest of the checking. */



#endregion

MarkTJohnson wrote:

We aren't supposed to free() the same pointer twice but since it doesn't hurt anything

//First
char* data = (char*)malloc(100 * sizeof *data);
free(data);
data = NULL;
free(data);

//Second
char* data = (char*)malloc(100 * sizeof *data);
free(data);
free(data);

Assert.AreEqual(int.Parse("42"), 42);