Guh…
Well, so.. I’m on speed. Unintentionally. The good side effect is that I’m coding the hell out of my project.
The bad news… I’m being sloppy. My complex algorithm that I spent weeks on was crashing. Really badly.
So after about 45 minutes of debugging I found the little bastard. I’m going to post it here. If people want an explanation… I can give it. Those of you who actually know code… see if you can see the stupidity I did.
if (currDepth != newDepth) {
NSUInteger popCount = currDepth - newDepth;
NSUInteger popCounter;
for (popCounter = 1; popCounter < = popCount; popCount++) {
[[self parserStack] pop];
}
}
Oh, I feel like such a moron.
We now return you to your previously scheduled morning.
« This would have ben more impressive 90 minutes ago. Quote overheard at the Airport »
God that’s funny.
I think I’m going to use this as a justification for sticking to ii, jj, or kk for my loop counters.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Simply another demonstration of why I should remain in QA :).
I just have to say “It didn’t work, and this is what it puked up:“
and be done iwth it :).
Hehee
Funny
You should have made it a const when you declared it, the compiler would have caught this for you (at least in C++)
Re: Hehee
Actually, I’m in Objective-C…. OOOOOOOOHH
People have complained when they look at my code that I tend to use FORTRAN-like naming conventions–I was even dinged on an annual review because of that–but you’ll never confuse i and len:
for (i = 1; i < = len; len++) {Pretty obvious when you use that crufty ol' C or FORTRAN programming style...
Oh, no worries
Most of the people at work prefer Hungarian (Play scary music now!)
Re: Oh, no worries
Apps Hungarian makes sense:
for (indexCounter = 1; indexCounter < = lenCounter; indexCounter++) {But System Hungarian--that bastard that most people at Microsoft advocates which seems like pointless nonsense to me (and proves a theory* of mine)--makes no sense:
for (lPopCounter = 1; lPopCounter < = lPopCount; lPopCount++) {There is no additional semantic information; just that useless 'l' prefix.
(*My theory is that most computer programmers strive subconsciously for two goals: complexity--which is misinterpreted for progress--and laziness. Thus, most code is over-engineered unnecessarily so as to give a false feeling of progress. Systems Hungarian is perfect for adding unnecessary complexity to give that false feeling of progress: after all, it is easier (and lazier) to create variables like lpfnCallback--though it looks complicated--than to think through the algorithm you're writing...)
yah, now I feel well justified in sticking to i and j etc.
If I had a doller…
An ‘er’ err? Arrh!
– Olof