Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 9 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I am writing some interfaces for my design in SystemVerilog, I have many of them. I was wondering if there are some specific guidelines regarding how to organize them.
right now I have all of my interfaces in one file. I was wondering if I should place each one of them in a separate file or all in one file. And if there are some specific guidelines on how to name the file(s).
Thanks.
Although the answer might seem opinionated, tools are designed with one file per design unit in mind, and the name of the file should match name of the unit. So if the name of the interfacer is foo, the name of the file should be foo.sv This way the tool can search a directory for files without having to specify them individually. The *.sv extension lets the tool know the file is writing in the SystemVerilog language.
Having one file per unit makes debugging easier and simplifies code coverage analysis. There might be other reasons with respect to project management for adhering to one file per unit, but those do get more opinionated.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I know in python it is good practice to have a models.py and put all of an application's model classes in there. Does the same apply to swift or is it better to have a separate file for each model class?
Thanks!
Apple recommends to have separate files for each model class however it's possible to use the "Python style"
Assuming that your project is average..I would put each of your models in a separate file. Sometimes you end up with some small files, but I would rather go through that then some massive file where I can't find anything.
There is no single correct answer to this question, but Swift's system of controlling access suggests that it is not the best practice.
Properties and methods marked private are only visible within the same source file. If you put all of your model classes into a single file, they will all have access to each others' private methods and properties, which defeats the whole purpose of marking something private.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
A word-processor has most if not all the features of a version control software without the gobbledegook and the complexity. You can set a word-processor to always keep history and probably save as versions every time you save. You could have an online word-processor- if one doesn't exist then it sounds like a great opportunity- with general access to allow multiple users to access it. Git and others are acknowledged to have multiple issues but I can't see a word-processor having big issues so why the preference for version control software?
Word processors, as far as I know, do not track versions of directory structures (trees) of files as a whole... .they only track single files. A version control system treats a "snapshot" of a whole tree of files as a single unit.
Online word processors do not support multiple authors working on the same file independently... instead they assume that multiple authors are collaborating in real time, working on exactly the same thing, which is not the usual workflow for software development.
Word processors do not support the concept of branches, which are a powerful tool for many software development use cases
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently working on an enhancement for a commercial utility that involves annotations with respect to LeadTools v13. In terms of LeadTools, it would appear that most things start off with the raster object, but without documentation for V13, it's somewhat of a challenge to make heads or tails of how to proceed in terms of reading the annotation files in.
If anyone has any code examples for such an old version, any help would be appreciated.
LEADTOOLS support don't have online documentation for this old version of LEADTOOLS. However, our help files shipped with the toolkit includes code examples for most of our functions including the annotations functions. You can find our help files in the following folder:
[LEADTOOLS 13 Folder]\Help
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Thanks a lot , I want to know the difference between 'Form Created automatically' and 'Existed Form'
in Delphi XE3. (Tools->Options->Forms)
An "auto-created" Form is created automatically for you at program startup. The IDE inserts a call to TApplication.CreateForm() into your project's main source file to accomplish that. The first auto-created Form becomes the TApplication.MainForm.
An "available" Form has to be created manually in your own code, which allows you to choose when/how it is created.
The biggest difference is the forms, all get created whether needed or not, and all stay in memory until the application is closed (or they are explicitly destroyed).
My delphi experience suggests that using auto create nearly always leads to poor lifetime management and encourages monolithic code, and in general should be avoided at all costs.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
In CPAN, a huge amount of Perl modules are available.
Which is your favourite way / method to assess the quality of a Perl module ? --- in prior to a manual test.
It seems like a rather easy question but it implies an impact. Many modules are buggy and time wasters. And it is not my intention to name a few of them to avoid an unnecessary defamation.
MetaCPAN Metrics: Rating, Bugs, Last Updated
In order to get easy access to these, try searching on metacpan.org instead of cpan.org. It displays number of open bug reports and average rating on the left-hand side, as well as telling you when the module was last updated and gives you an overview of the speed at which changes are made to the module.
You can also easily see a list of dependencies on the right, so you can look for any modules in the groundwork which are less-than-stellar. It doesn't give you any data you can't get on cpan.org, but it does put it all in one place.
Obviously, if you're working on critical infrastructure, nothing is going to replace an old-fashioned code review as you need to be confident not only in the quality of your program but in your understanding of the plumbing, but those are the metrics I usually look at first.