|
Well, yes, I can see you're upset, but surely if DVLA has posted the item any delay in it reaching you is the fault of the Post Office, not the perky civil servants down in Swansea? Just saying!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
You could possibly have a point except every frog and his tadpole knows 1st class should be 1-3 days. So I suspect someone is playing Silly Buggers again in Swansea.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
When I pay the DVLA, the money is gone straight away, a refund takes six weeks...
|
|
|
|
|
What they mean is that they've put it in an envelope and dropped in the Outgoing Mail tray, which is only dealt with on Thursday mornings by someone who doesn't give a cr@p, and never empties it completely.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least one of 'em should have been "Elementy McElementface"
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Damn! beat me to it.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I would have called one yippeekiyayium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...just answered a VB .NET question in QA, and the first line of his method is...
On Error Resume Next
I feel dirty for just having typed it.
Why isn't this abortion dead? Who is teaching people about this? And why?
If you see anyone recommending it, can you please, please, give them a swift kick where it really hurts?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Please! Never ever spoke to me again! Filthy VB lover...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't think you acknowledged vb
|
|
|
|
|
It is disgusting, just like
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
It's worse than that! It's like:
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
try {
} catch (Exception ex) { }
... repeated 8000 times...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I once saw:
On Error Goto ErrorHandler
ErrorHandler:
MsgBox err
resume
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I saw it and my first advice was to remove it. Then to improve the code :p
Unfortunately, no, its not dead, there are still VB6 programmers - I'm currently working on a project that was written by VB6 turned VB.NET programmer and I'm still refactoring whenever I get the chance.
I have DAL interface with all data access methods defined in there...and I don't have time to split it so I continue adding to it when changing existing code. It is at 300+ methods right now. With two concrete classes implementing it.
|
|
|
|
|
I know an old VB dinosaur who does it almost right...
Try
Dim sCode As String = 123
Dim Id As Integer
Dim someOtherVar As String
Catch (ex As Excpetion)
Log(Err.Message)
End Try I used to see this pre-.NET VB mixed with VB.NET a lot
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, you would love Rx then, there is something called Retry there
Click and cry[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Retry actually makes sense: sometimes you have to wait for something to "wake up" so doing it three times before failing isn't a bad idea.
Be a nice addon to C#:
retry (3)
{
MyOperation();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
...
} Or even just
try (3)
{
MyOperation();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
...
}
Mind you, it'd also be nice to have try with a timespan timeout which caused a catch sometimes.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can with Rx, but It will involve some nasty code.
If you look in the link I posted you can retry infinitely many times:
public static void RetrySample<T>(IObservable<T> source)
{
source.Retry().Subscribe(t=>Console.WriteLine(t));
Console.ReadKey();
}
So all you have to do is to enclose the subscription in an Observer, and set a timerinterval for desubscription by using an IObserver class.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Why isn't this abortion dead? When you have a function that calls an external process and you don't care if it generates an error or not, then it works great. If it does generate an error it's an external process and nothing you can do about it and you still want the rest of your code to run.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
There was a "question" back in April which was basically a rant about how C# sucked because it didn't have this "feature".
The OP was insistent that his code was perfect, and he just wanted to ignore Microsoft's errors.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: The OP was insistent that his code was perfect, and he just wanted to ignore Microsoft's errors. You know, sometimes natural selection is just too damned slow.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
The worst part of this is that I find a whole bunch of vendors that do this crap, too! I deal with Dynamics GP, where customizations can be written in VBA. I had a major error in one window where it kept dumping the user into VBA, bypassing all security. I contacted the vendor, and (sort of politely) requested they get their **** together. They sent me updated code... First line?
On error resume next
I lost it! They were confused why we changed vendors within a week after that...
|
|
|
|