|
Amitosh Swain wrote: i'm thinking to leverage it into a javascript ofuscator! Uhm, so... the next "hacker's script" will be yours... or maybe this one was! <hides his IP under the desk>
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Jacek Gajek wrote: Uhm, so... the next "hacker's script" will be yours... or maybe this one was
I'm not that good at breaking anything... anything means anything...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, two times substring instead of the functions of System.IO.Path - 9 years ago I did not know them.
But you see: you'd fix the substrings, not the failure. The beauty of this gem prevents you from really fixing the problem (e.g. strFileName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString() & "." & Extension )
|
|
|
|
|
This one's a lesson in why reading the documentation can be helpful. GetTempFileName states that it creates the file ... somewhat annoying if you want to create a temporary file with a different name (extension), but I guess their point is that the name doesn't matter as it's only temporary.
|
|
|
|
|
If you just want to generate a random filename without creating a file, try Path.GetRandomFileName[^] instead.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you wish.
Will remove it in next 5 min.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry unable to delete.
|
|
|
|
|
Found this in a would be production code today ...
public bool InitializeApp()
{
bool bStatus = false;
try
{
try
{
DoStep2();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
try
{
DoStep3();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
try
{
DoStep4();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
try
{
DoStep5();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
try
{
DoStep6();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
catch (Exception eError)
{
}
return bStatus;
}
Goes without saying that every DoStep method has a try-catchEverything block with log
If I am still missing the point .. its the nested try-catch I am pointing to
modified 30-May-13 23:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I've had to do that in certain circumstances. Use the right tool for the right job.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you elaborate? I find it hard to conceive of a situation where that would be necessary, but am willing to be proved wrong.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
What came to mind was a Windows Service I wrote a few years back that had to perform a number of related, but not dependent, tasks.
An analog that also came to mind was babysitting... the babysitter will have a number of tasks:
0) Check the kid's homework
1) Feed the kid
2) Put the kid to bed
A problem in one task doesn't mean you can't perform the others:
If the kid doesn't do the homework or has errors, you still feed him.
If the kid doesn't eat his vegetables, you still put him to bed.
Just log it and continue. If the problem is bad enough, alert the parents, but don't go running out of the house.
|
|
|
|
|
Food is a reward for doing the homework. I will be a terrible parent.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
It's not that bad, unless each step depends on the previous step completing successfully, in which case there's no reason to run the rest when you know they will fail.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I always have an Uncaught Exception Handler. I program mostly in Java and C# and I don't like any hangs or crashes. get an uncaught handler, if at all an exception occurs, (yes... I give heed to LogException too) if is shown as -
"POSSIBLE BUG... Please help us to fix it by sending a brief bug report"...
|
|
|
|
|
I also like the fact that it will always return false . Did you miss this most important feature?
|
|
|
|
|
) good eyes
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like
on error resume next
|
|
|
|
|
One use for such a structure would be to fully log the error without having debuging info in the compiled form.
If that is the case, then the outer try/catch would be the unnecessary one, not the internal ones.
|
|
|
|
|
I was completely flabbergasted by a piece of C# code, until I saw one line near the top (hidden at first in a collapsed block) that read
using var = System.Int32;
Wow, OK. Yes, you can do that, and yes, that makes var (note the colour) behave exactly like int (well like Int32 really - that is, you can't use it as the base type of an enum), and yes, this forum is highlighting it with the wrong colour in the code block.
modified 27-May-13 2:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
Find them.
Then kill them. Horribly. A lesson must be sent out: do not do this.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
|
|
|
|
|
Can't... resist... it's... like... a... siren...
(yes|no|maybe)*
|
|
|
|