The 5-Second Trick For magic

The 5-Second Trick For magic

Blog Article

Q: Why was MagicMock produced a separate matter as an alternative to just folding the power in to the default mock object?

By way of example, they could insert non-typical code that makes sure superior mistake messages, Or maybe operates all over some flaw in their compiler, Or even allows Specific optimizations by utilizing extra characteristics of that specific compiler.

So by your definition, my reply is most surely correct. For the remainder of us, it is a little more iffy, simply because the remainder of us use "STL" to check with a subset in the typical library, and there are a number of normal library capabilities in C++11 which demand compiler "magic". But is there overlap involving Individuals options and also the "STL" portion? I do not think so.

Let us further faux that 2 as pixel padding inside our program is from the "default_padding" selection during our program. Hence, writing the instruction padding = 2 will not be sufficient.

Let's put our lone "two" within a context of: padding := 2, where by the context is a "GUI Container". During this context the that means of 2 (as pixels or other graphical device) provides us a quick guess of its semantics (meaning and reason).

It increases readability of your code and It can be much easier to take care of. Consider the situation where I set the scale from the password field in the GUI. If I utilize a magic range, When the max dimension changes, I have to vary in two code spots. If I fail to remember one, this will likely cause inconsistencies.

What if you want accessing your mock being a container item for being an mistake -- you don't want that to operate? If every mock has routinely received just about every protocol method, then it gets much harder to do that. And in addition, MagicMock does many of this preconfiguring to suit your needs, location return values that might not be acceptable, so I assumed it would be much better to acquire this convenience one that has all the things preconfigured and available for you, but It's also possible to have a normal mock item and just configure the magic solutions you should exist...

Should you think that this concern can be enhanced and possibly reopened, check out the help Middle for guidance. Shut twelve years in the past.

Lots of people did - STLPort is surely an implementation that did not have the backing of any compiler manufacturer.

Examine stand-on your own manifest continual fundamental values in your code textual content. Question Every single issue gradually and thoughtfully about Every occasion of these a price. Take into account the power of your respond to.

Does The fundamental price Have got a semantic or purpose interactions with other basic values in particular contexts?

This is why it's best to have this sort of ambiguous and arbitrary numbers in precisely 1 put - "const int NumOrdersToDisplay = 50", because which makes the code much more readable ("if a < NumOrdersToDisplay", In addition it signifies you only will need to change it Krol in one effectively described area.

I believe static closing constants are overkill if you're using them in one approach. A closing variable declared at the best of the method is more readable IMHO.

Want to further improve this problem? Update the problem so it concentrates on one particular problem only by editing this write-up.