|
If we are talking about sexiness it annoys me way more that you have
if (m_selectionHandler == null) instead of if (m_selectionHandler != null) return m_selectionHandler;
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
MessageBox.Show(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature)
? "This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature
: "404-Signature not found");
|
|
|
|
|
ha, err... yea, I don't care either way.. but now that you mention it, I usually tend to it more that way too.. mm...
I think what happens is some previously annoying code comment and refactoring, so it ended up that way...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you know i didn't use it much at first but then i found it very useful, since i prefer reading a method not like a chapter of a book but a "flowchart".
So if i get into that method i don't want to scroll down to see what happens if something is something
but i want to know what happens if this is true, okay return. Next "branch" if this happens, do that and return. And so on.
Makes readability in my opinion way better and if you are looking for a specific branch of actions you may find it faster.
But that's just my approach 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
MessageBox.Show(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature)
? "This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature
: "404-Signature not found");
|
|
|
|
|
exactly my thoughts process too!
but, those code reviews are getting to me, too many stupid comments, and style guideline I don't like, so those days I just give up and do whatever the hell they say, but that also puts me in a bad mood and makes me think.. less clearly shall we say...
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't change the rules, break the rules XD
Nah srsly, i tend to go on change it, love it or leave it mentality. This solves many frustration related issues for me so far.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
MessageBox.Show(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature)
? "This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature
: "404-Signature not found");
|
|
|
|
|
The "extra" variable doesn't bother me. I don't think there's much difference in the cognitive load required to understand each function.
Given that the first one passed code review, it's "sexier", IMO.
Edit: I have to add, is the extra time you're spending trying to decide which version is more readable adding the requisite amount of value? *hides*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I am just fed up with all those rubbing me wrong micro management useless comments...
I try to just shrug it off...
But it annoys me every time some (of those particular) guys reviews... but on the other hand getting any review at all is also hard work, so bloody annoying...
|
|
|
|
|
Understandable. I can't stand code reviews myself, because I have some different philosophies about how code needs to be written than a lot of people I have worked with.
However, when I am in a position where I am in charge of code reviews, I tend to go easy and stick to enforcing in-shop style guidelines more than anything.
I don't care about fast for bizdev unless something is slow enough you want to get out and push. I would have accepted either version of your code.
I think both are readable *enough* - and this is one of the areas where I differ with a lot of people. I don't spend as much time chasing readability as other coders. I like to look at cognitive load more than readability, because I feel like readability can be had by reading the complicated parts of a function more than once. The trick is in *understanding* what you've read. That's the part where I care, but also the part I'm not great at. One of the reasons I write here is to try to improve my skillset in terms of making my code understandable. My functions are too long, but that's due to some cognitive issues I have myself, and it's part of how I've adapted to them.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Storing the value of the property (SelectedObject) into a local variable (objects) is like a snapshot.
It ensures that any subsequent instruction refers to the same object.
This is important when you need consistency throughout the method, the method can be relatively time consuming and some other thread can concurrently change the property value.
You can always rely on compiler optimizations and hope that the compiled machine code will take care of such thing, or you can do it by yourself with the local variable.
Another reason could be that you know in advance that someone will add code inside the method to purposely change the object value; such change will require to put the object into a variable, like the collegue told you to do.
Doing it later will require to replace any reference to the property with references to the variable: those changes would be spread along the method polluting versioning differences.
It can even be of help if copy-paste is performed to some other method where the logic must be kept but the property to process has a different name.
These are indeed pre-optimizations, and we can argue about their usefullness and their development cost.
Additionally, the name of the property is not totally meaningful, due to the fact it is singular but it can store multiple objects (like the name of the variable unfolds): this could be an important hint for the future-you maintaining the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Just for giggles, how about:
private IMultipleComponentHandler SelectionHandler => m_selectionHandler ??= SelectedObject switch
{
null => new InspectorMultipleComponentHandler(Array.Empty<object>()),
IMultipleComponentHandler handler => handler,
object[] e when !e.GetAttributes<IgnoreIEnumerableAttribute>.Any() => e,
IEnumerable e when !e.GetAttributes<IgnoreIEnumerableAttribute>.Any() => e.Cast<object>().ToArray(),
var e => new InspectorMultipleComponentHandler(new[] { e }),
}; As with your first example, this only accesses SelectedObject once.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
we're still stuck on .NET 4.7.2 at the moment.... 
not for long I heard .NET 6 is coming, like the winter!
|
|
|
|
|
If you're using VS2019 or 2022, you can still use that construct in .NET 4.7.2; you just need to manually edit your project file to enable C# 9.
If you already have a <LangVersion> element in the file, change it to <LangVersion>9.0</LangVersion>. Otherwise, add that element next to the <TargetFramework> element.
Quite a few C# 8/9/10 features will work in .NET Framework projects:
Using C# 9 outside .NET 5 · Discussion #47701 · dotnet/roslyn · GitHub[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting...
Though in our case there is some sort of build system, which is still mysterious to me, that generate the .csproj files.. so I would need to get familiar with that first! 
In fact... I really ought to become more familiar with this particular system.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are we coding in C# or Perl? I always felt like C# was a nice balance between COBOL and Perl. But the recent changes have it trending towards Perl. I hear the excuse "it saves typing" as if we aren't on a message board or slack typing all day long.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I'd use the first version - that way if SelectedObject is changed (by another thread for example) the non-null value is preserved and the app doesn't crash.
It's the way I handle event raising - my standard template code is:
public event EventHandler Name;
protected virtual void OnName(EventArgs e)
{
EventHandler eh = Name;
if (eh != null)
{
eh(this, e);
}
}
That way, in the (unlikely) event that the last handler is removed from the c=hain, the app doesn't crash and does something sensible.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Two obvious alternatives to that:
public event EventHandler Name = delegate { };
protected virtual void OnName(EventArgs e)
{
Name(this, e);
}
public event EventHandler Name;
protected virtual void OnName(EventArgs e)
{
Name?.Invoke(this, e);
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The first relies on the empty delegate: if someone else sees the code and removes it as it clearly does nothing then you are back to a potential failure. Unlikely, yes - but I don't like app failures. 
The second is .NET version dependant: the null conditional operator was introduced at C# 6, and some of my code predates that.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Very good good code review result. Absolutely meaningless and harmless change. You and code reviewer, and of course, managers, are happy.
BTW, after native optimizations both versions may be absolutely identical. But don't tell about this to your manager.
|
|
|
|
|
It’s unlikely the compiler knows that no other thread may change the SelectedObject during the getter body. One should acknowledge that fact by capturing its value, not for speed or readability, but for correctness.
That so many people find it trivial or overly optimizing is really scary. Pragmatically it may be a non-issue, but it’s a time-bomb and there’s arguably no justification for the “simpler” syntax. Concurrency is hard.
|
|
|
|
|
I have problems with both.
"var" is a coding shortcut when you're too lazy to type, and should be replaced with the actual type when it resolves (before release); so the next guy doesn't have to "intelli-sense" it. "Object" seems more appropriate in this case.
I dislike "long" if's and would have "if not null return x" instead of (if null etc.)
Even though it works, I don't declare properties "after" the method that references them.
The return "assign" is "different".
Then there are the if's with bracketed blocks and some without. Saving keystrokes?
etc.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
You’re not wrong, but you’re also not necessarily right. Coding preferences should be agreed upon, codified, and automated to avoid debate. The important thing is that there’s consistency.
Calling a coding practice “lazy” (like the use of ‘var’) is condescending, at best, and smells of arrogance. It’s also associated with narrow-mindedness, and quite frankly, can date you in a bad way. I’m sure the intent was a call for action, but your reasoning and diction could be improved.
Very simply, the guidance on the use of ‘var’ states that it should be used only if the type is repeated or obvious (without IntelliSense) on the right side of the equals sign; this simultaneously makes it easier to spot variable declarations while respecting the intelligence of the reader, who may not really care what the type is up front, especially if the name is well-chosen or the type name is long. A similar logic can be applied, per your preference, for the implicit new() operator, though I tend to see those used mostly on field initializers. Having said that, the Framework Design Guidelines recommends *against* the use of var, except when using ‘new’, ‘as’, or a hard cast, in which cases it is *permissible*.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have done things this way:
private IMultipleComponentHandler SelectionHandler
{
get
{
if (m_selectionHandler == null)
{
if (SelectedObject is IMultipleComponentHandler handler)
{
m_selectionHandler = handler;
}
else
{
object[] collection;
if (SelectedObject is IEnumerable e
&& !SelectedObject.GetAttributes<IgnoreIEnumerableAttribute>().Any())
{
collection = e as object[] ?? e.Cast<object>().ToArray();
}
else if (SelectedObject != null)
{
collection = new[] { SelectedObject };
}
else
{
collection = Array.Empty<object>();
}
m_selectionHandler = new InspectorMultipleComponentHandler(collection);
}
}
return m_selectionHandler;
}
}
private IMultipleComponentHandler m_selectionHandler;I'm an old fart who prefers single-exit .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I would be tempted to extract the contents of the if statement as a function, like this:
public IMultipleComponentHandler SelectionHandler
{
get
{
if (m_selectionHandler == null)
{
m_selectionHandler = InitialiseSelectionHandler(SelectedObject);
}
return m_selectionHandler;
}
}
private IMultipleComponentHandler InitialiseSelectionHandler(object selectedObject)
{
if (selectedObject is IMultipleComponentHandler handler)
return m_selectionHandler = handler;
object[] collection;
if (selectedObject is IEnumerable e
&& !selectedObject.GetAttributes<IgnoreIEnumerableAttribute>().Any())
{
collection = e as object[] ?? e.Cast<object>().ToArray();
}
else if (selectedObject != null)
{
collection = new[] { selectedObject };
}
else
{
collection = Array.Empty<object>();
}
return new InspectorMultipleComponentHandler(collection);
}
private IMultipleComponentHandler m_selectionHandler;
This hides the issue of using a temporary variable, snapshots the SelectedObject so the value being used can not change while updating the handler and the getter property for SelectionHandler becomes easier to read.
An added bonus is if SelectedObject changes you can update the handler by calling InitialiseSelectionHandler.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
