In my code the order of epics matter (example below) but my feeling is that it shouldn't so where's the truth?
From looking at the code of combineEpics it looks like epics are called sequentially so technically order matters but should the application behave the same even if the code contained ...epics.reverse().map?
Thanks
E.g. this behaves differently
combineEpics(
epic1,
epic2,
);
than this
combineEpics(
epic2,
epic1,
);
The order you provide the epics reflects the order in which they will receive the latest dispatched action. So order does indeed matter, though in practice I've never seen an app run into a case where it truly did.
I can see contrived cases where it could bite you mostly around epic-to-epic actions, but I haven't heard of anyone hitting them.
Demo showing order matters
Even if not likely to affect anyone this is probably something we should mention in the docs since it may not obvious to everyone.
Related
This is a question with no definite answer so apologies if I posted this wrongly however at my place of work alot of the code I see written by our developers have function names with the keyword 'should', must I add they base this on 'should' and 'should not'. From a point of semantics, whats your view on this? I've mentioned before that I don't believe this should be used because it has too many possibilities (where does it end) however they insist its a good practice.
Example use;
$this->it_should_render_template_partially($params);
$this->it_should_show_module_parameters($params);
$this->it_should_not_return_module_parameters($params);
I am curious on others thoughts. Just to add, this is production code and not unit tests.
While I like long, descriptive, names, I don't like redundancy. When I read the documentation of a function, I expect it to do what it is supposed to do. Yes, functions are written by humans that make a lot of mistakes, so they can have bugs, which means they do not behave as intended. But this is implied when one uses a function. We hope that out functions do what they should (and we try to make sure that is the case using tests). But specifying the should part in the name of a function is just redundant, which is, in my opinion, a bad practice, as it results in longer names, harder to read/write.
I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to use different row templates for specific rows in an NSPredicateEditor (or, if need be, an NSRuleEditor). I've got a screenshot that I think helps me explain this more clearly.
In this contrived example, I only want people to generate a filter that looks for a specific path above a certain size. So, in Section A (the Any block), users can only specify path rules (and the users can add additional paths). In section B, I only want the Size option to be available.
Nothing's jumping out at me from the docs (or, the stuff that does jump out at me ends up being something else), but it seems like this is the sort of thing that might come in handy, which makes me think it might be possible.
From what I understand about NSPredicateEditor, this is not possible. You might be able to swing it if you do everything yourself with an NSRuleEditor, but I haven't played with that class as much.
So in a nutshell: if you implement it yourself, it's possible. With the built-in stuff, I'm 99.9% certain that it's not a configurable behavior.
What is the best way to implement a constructor for a record? It seems like a function should be able to return a record object in the instantiation of the record in some later model higher up the tree, but I can't get that to work. For now I just use a bunch of parameters at the top of the record that populate the variables stored in the record, but it seems like that will only work in simple cases.
Can anyone shed a little light? Perhaps I shouldn't be using a record but a model. Also does anyone know how the PDE functionality is coming? The book only says that it is coming, but I have seen some other things around.
I don't seem to have the clout to add tags (which makes sense, since my "reputation" is lower than yours) so sorry about that. I thought I had actually added one at one point, but perhaps I am mistaken.
I think you need to be clear what you mean by constructor since it has a very specific meaning in Modelica. If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like what you want to do is create an instance of a record that has some fields that are specified in the constructor arguments and from those arguments a bunch of other fields in the record are computed. Is that correct?
If so, there is a mechanism to do this. You mention "the book" but it isn't clear which one you mean. If it is mine, it definitely has no mention of these so called "record constructors" because it is too old. I do not know if Peter Fritzson's book mentions them either. However, they do exist and are documented in Section 12.6 of the Modelica 3.2 specification.
As for PDEs, there has been work into this kind of thing but nothing has really been done within the design group on this topic. I would add that if you want to solve either elliptical or parabolic PDEs on regular grids, this isn't too hard even with the current language. The only real drawback is that most tools probably don't handle sparsity very efficiently. Irregular grids would also be possible, but then you get into complicated basis functions. Finally, hyperbolic PDEs are, in my opinion, quite tricky (in any environment) due to the implicit physical constraints between time and space which are difficult to express (i.e. the CFL condition).
I hope that answers your questions so far.
I can only comment on your question regarding the book of Peter Fritzson. He confirmed that he's working on an update and he hopes to get it ready 'in the course of 2011'.
Original post here:
http://openmodelica.org/index.php/forum/topic?id=50
And thanks for initiating the modelica tag, I might be useful in the near future for me too... :-)
regards,
Roel
There are a multitude of key-value stores available. Currently you need to choose one and stick with it. I believe an independent open API, not made by a key-value store vendor would make switching between stores much easier.
Therefore I'm building a datastore abstraction layer (like ODBC but focused on simpler key value stores) so that someone build an app once, and change key-value stores if necessary. Is this API too simple?
get(Key)
set(Key, Value)
exists(Key)
delete(Key)
As all the APIs I have seen so far seem to add so much I was wondering how many additional methods were necessary?
I have received some replies saying that set(null) could be used to delete an item and if get returns null then this means that an item doesn't exist. This is bad for two reasons. Firstly, is it not good to mix return types and statuses, and secondly, not all languages have the concept of null. See:
Do all programming languages have a clear concept of NIL, null, or undefined?
I do want to be able to perform many types of operation on the data, but as I understand it everything can be built up on top of a key value store. Is this correct? And should I provide these value added functions too? e.g: like mapreduce, or indexes
Internally we already have a basic version of this in Erlang and Ruby and it has saved us alot of time, and also enabled us to test performance for specific use cases of different key value stores
Do only what is absolute necessary, instead of asking if it is too simple, ask if it is too much, even if it only has one method.
Your API lacks some useful functions like "hasKey" and "clear". You might want to look at, say, Python's hack at it, http://docs.python.org/tutorial/datastructures.html#dictionaries, and pick and choose additional functions.
Everyone is saying, "simple is good" and that's true until "simple is too simple."
If all you are doing is getting, setting, and deleting keys, this is fine.
There is no such thing as "too simple" for an API. The simpler the better! If it solves the need the way it is, then leave it.
The delete method is unnecessary. You can just pass null to set.
Edited to add:
I'm only kidding! I would keep delete, and probably add Count, Contains, and maybe an enumerator (or two).
When creating an API, you need to ask yourself, what does my API provide the user. If your API is so simplistic that it is faster and easier for your client to write their own app, then your API has failed. Ask yourself, does my functionality give them specific benefits. If the answer is no, it is too simplistic and generic.
I am all for simplifying an interface to its bare minimum but without having more details about the requirements of the system, it is tough to tell if this interface is sufficient. Sure looks concise enough though.
Don't forget to document the semantics for "key non-existent" as it isn't clear from reading your API definition above. updated: I see you have added the exists method: is this necessary? you could use the get method and define a NIL of some sort, no?
Maybe worth thinking about: how about considering "freshness" of a value? i.e. an associated "last-modified" timestamp? Of course, it depends on your system requirements.
What about access control? Is it within scope of the API definition?
What about iterating through the keys? If there is a possibility of a large set, you might want to include some pagination semantics.
As mentioned, the simpler the better, but a simple iterator or key-listing method could be of use. I always end up needing to iterate through the set. A "size()" method too, if not taken care of by the iterator. It obviously depends on your usage, though.
It's not too simple, it's beautiful. If "exists(key)" is just a convenient shorthand for "get(Key) != null", you should consider removing it. I guess that depends on how large or complex the value you get() is.
I've always hated comments that fill half the screen with asterisks just to tell you that the function returns a string, I never read those comments.
However, I do read comments that describe why something is done and how it's done (usually the single line comments in the code); those come in really handy when trying to understand someone else's code.
But when it comes to writing comments, I don't write that, rather, I use comments only when writing algorithms in programming contests, I'd think of how the algorithm will do what it does then I'd write each one in a comment, then write the code that corresponds to that comment.
An example would be:
//loop though all the names from n to j - 1
Other than that I can't imagine why anyone would waste valuable time writing comments when he could be writing code.
Am I right or wrong? Am I missing something? What other good use cases of comments am I not aware of?
Comments should express why you are doing something not what you are doing
It's an old adage, but a good metric to use is:
Comment why you're doing something, not how you're doing it.
Saying "loop through all the names from n to j-1" should be immediately clear to even a novice programmer from the code alone. Giving the reason why you're doing that can help with readability.
If you use something like Doxygen, you can fully document your return types, arguments, etc. and generate a nice "source code manual." I often do this for clients so that the team that inherits my code isn't entirely lost (or forced to review every header).
Documentation blocks are often overdone, especially is strongly typed languages. It makes a lot more sense to be verbose with something like Python or PHP than C++ or Java. That said, it's still nice to do for methods & members that aren't self explanatory (not named update, for instance).
I've been saved many hours of thinking, simply by commenting what I'd want to tell myself if I were reading my code for the first time. More narrative and less observation. Comments should not only help others, but yourself as well... especially if you haven't touched it in five years. I have some ten year old Perl that I wrote and I still don't know what it does anymore.
Something very dirty, that I've done in PHP & Python, is use reflection to retrieve comment blocks and label elements in the user interface. It's a use case, albeit nasty.
If using a bug tracker, I'll also drop the bug ID near my changes, so that I have a reference back to the tracker. This is in addition to a brief description of the change (inline change logs).
I also violate the "only comment why not what" rule when I'm doing something that my colleagues rarely see... or when subtlety is important. For instance:
for (int i = 50; i--; ) cout << i; // looping from 49..0 in reverse
for (int i = 50; --i; ) cout << i; // looping from 49..1 in reverse
I use comments in the following situations:
High-level API documentation comments, i.e. what is this class or function for?
Commenting the "why".
A short, high-level summary of what a much longer block of code does. The key word here is summary. If someone wants more detail, the code should be clear enough that they can get it from the code. The point here is to make it easy for someone browsing the code to figure out where some piece of logic is without having to wade through the details of how it's performed. Ideally these cases should be factored out into separate functions instead, but sometimes it's just not do-able because the function would have 15 parameters and/or not be nameable.
Pointing out subtleties that are visible from reading the code if you're really paying attention, but don't stand out as much as they should given their importance.
When I have a good reason why I need to do something in a hackish way (performance, etc.) and can't write the code more clearly instead of using a comment.
Comment everything that you think is not straightforward and you won't be able to understand the next time you see your code.
It's not a bad idea to record what you think your code should be achieving (especially if the code is non-intuitive, if you want to keep comments down to a minimum) so that someone reading it a later date, has an easier time when debugging/bugfixing. Although one of the most frustrating things to encounter in reading someone else's code is cases where the code has been updated, but not the comments....
I've always hated comments that fill half the screen with asterisks just to tell you that the function returns a string, I never read those comments.
Some comments in that vein, not usually with formatting that extreme, actually exist to help tools like JavaDoc and Doxygen generate documentation for your code. This, I think, is a good form of comment, because it has both a human- and machine-readable format for documentation (so the machine can translate it to other, more useful formats like HTML), puts the documentation close to the code that it documents (so that if the code changes, the documentation is more likely to be updated to reflect these changes), and generally gives a good (and immediate) explanation to someone new to a large codebase of why a particular function exists.
Otherwise, I agree with everything else that's been stated. Comment why, and only comment when it's not obvious. Other than Doxygen comments, my code generally has very few comments.
Another type of comment that is generally useless is:
// Commented out by Lumpy Cheetosian on 1/17/2009
...uh, OK, the source control system would have told me that. What it won't tell me is WHY Lumpy commented out this seemingly necessary piece of code. Since Lumpy is located in Elbonia, I won't be able to find out until Monday when they all return from the Snerkrumph holiday festival.
Consider your audience, and keep the noise level down. If your comments include too much irrelevant crap, developers will just ignore them in practice.
BTW: Javadoc (or Doxygen, or equiv.) is a Good Thing(tm), IMHO.
I also use comments to document where a specific requirement came from. That way the developer later can look at the requirement that caused the code to be like it was and, if the new requirement conflicts with the other requirment get that resolved before breaking an existing process. Where I work requirments can often come from different groups of people who may not be aware of other requirements then system must meet. We also get frequently asked why we are doing a certain thing a certain way for a particular client and it helps to be able to research to know what requests in our tracking system caused the code to be the way it is. This can also be done on saving the code in the source contol system, but I consider those notes to be comments as well.
Reminds me of
Real programmers don't write documentation
I wrote this comment a while ago, and it's saved me hours since:
// NOTE: the close-bracket above is NOT the class Items.
// There are multiple classes in this file.
// I've already wasted lots of time wondering,
// "why does this new method I added at the end of the class not exist?".