|
because the second wont compile? (missing close bracket)
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: because the second wont compile? (missing close bracket)
 Fixed. The second one was hand-written rather than from a working example. 
|
|
|
|
|
A. Explicit params are good vs implicit [by position] but your symbol names take me to... youtu.be/zAlNrtcPCLw one of the most annoying songs in recent history
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like the bottom form if the number of parentheses matched. The top form is more difficult to match up what belongs with what. My real preference would be:
(
this,
new ProcessEventArgs()
{
fromMembrane,
fromReceptor,
membrane,
target,
obj
}
)
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Snyder wrote: I would like the bottom form if the number of parentheses matched.
Wow, people's eyes are good. Fixed, but still inline. But I like your version.
|
|
|
|
|
For some Markdown Formatting reason, I cannot get Processing.Fire to display in the block.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_Snyder wrote: For some Markdown Formatting reason, I cannot get Processing.Fire to display in the block.
Bizarre. Works for me! 
[edit] Oh, in you're example. Yeah, I was wondering about that. [/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Depends - if I can reasonably name the variables "almost like" the argument names (e.g. "targetReceptor" instead of "target") and if I have no reason to use an expression as parameter then I go for the second form because I don't feel the first form would increase the clarity of the code.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
The first sort of feels clunky but it is much safer.
Someone will one day insert a field in the middle of the others and the thing will go kaboom(I hope I am not being too technical in my language here).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: insert a field in the middle of the others and the thing will go kaboom
Good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As always, the only valid answer is: it depends.
Does it make sense for the properties to be writeable? Particularly in an EventArgs class, where you probably don't want one rogue handler to change the data that other handlers see.
If you have lots of parameters, and you don't always need to pass all of them, an object initializer might be cleaner. But you could do something similar with optional parameters, or provide constructor overloads for each valid set of parameters. And if you're in that situation, it might be time to refactor the class anyway, because it's probably breaking the SRP.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Does it make sense for the properties to be writeable?
5! Yes, that's the hidden "gotcha". When using a constructor, the class can be initialized like this:
public class ProcessEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public IMembrane FromMembrane { get; protected set; }
public IReceptor FromReceptor { get; protected set; }
public IMembrane ToMembrane { get; protected set; }
public IReceptor ToReceptor { get; protected set; }
public ISemanticType SemanticType { get; protected set; }
public ProcessEventArgs(IMembrane fromMembrane, IReceptor fromReceptor, IMembrane toMembrane, IReceptor toReceptor, ISemanticType st)
{
FromMembrane = fromMembrane;
FromReceptor = fromReceptor;
ToMembrane = toMembrane;
ToReceptor = toReceptor;
SemanticType = st;
}
}
Note the protected setters.
|
|
|
|
|
Or better yet, like this:
public class ProcessEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public IMembrane FromMembrane { get; }
public IReceptor FromReceptor { get; }
public IMembrane ToMembrane { get; }
public IReceptor ToReceptor { get; }
public ISemanticType SemanticType { get; }
public ProcessEventArgs(IMembrane fromMembrane, IReceptor fromReceptor, IMembrane toMembrane, IReceptor toReceptor, ISemanticType semanticType)
{
FromMembrane = fromMembrane;
FromReceptor = fromReceptor;
ToMembrane = toMembrane;
ToReceptor = toReceptor;
SemanticType = semanticType;
}
}
(Assuming you're using the C# 6 compiler or later. Otherwise, private set; would have a similar effect.)
Also, named parameters can make the constructor look more like the object initializer:
Processing.Fire(this, new ProcessEventArgs(
fromMembrane: fromMembrane,
fromReceptor: fromReceptor,
toMembrane: membrane,
toReceptor: target,
semanticType: obj
));
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
modified 13-Oct-17 10:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Also, named parameters can make the constructor look more like the object initializer:
Ah, I've never used that syntax in C#. And yes, omitting the setter or marking it private too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Also, named parameters can make the constructor look more like the object initializer:
Now that I think about it, I have used that syntax, in ASP.NET/Razor. Personally, I think the only reason they added that form of initialization was so that people used to JSON object initialization in JavaScript would be comfortable. 
|
|
|
|
|
The answer, of course, is that it all depends. The second example has the potential to introduce errors that the first doesn't if you're looking at validation to make sure that the values in ProcessEventArgs aren't null (validating them in the constructor of course). More importantly, the second example implies that you have opened up the scope of the properties to be read/write as opposed to read only. It really depends on what the use case is for ProcessEventArgs.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: More importantly, the second example implies that you have opened up the scope of the properties to be read/write as opposed to read only
5! Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm old school, so the second one any day! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: I'm old school, so the second one any day!
Hey there's this new fancy language called COBOL you should check out.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Too soon. Gotta wait a bit and see if it catches on... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Arriving late to the party (comments indicate multiple edits have been made).
For my older eyes, I prefer the first; I can see what the arguments are on each line without having to scan a list looking for something.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: I prefer the first; I can see what the arguments are on each line without having to scan a list looking for something.
Me too, but as others have pointed out, it allows for the properties to be write-able.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
