|
Good idea on the 'where' clause safeguard.
|
|
|
|
|
Note to self: never, ever, ever hire Marco Marsala 
The whole thing's rigged to blow, touch those tanks and "boooom"!
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what happen when a critical thing falls into a powerful person.
Cheers,
Patric
|
|
|
|
|
I have just read that should there be a Brexit the Czechs may propose a Czexit.
Am I the only one who would like Finland to consider their position as well, if nothing else than to hear all the journos have to refer to Fexit?
It goes without saying
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to mention the richest (per-capita) country in the EU, Luxembourg, here.
«The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.» Soren Kierkegaard
|
|
|
|
|
EU's disintegration would be a huge tradgedy.
EU brings together all of Europe into a package for Washington to direct
Absent EU would be chaos without leader to counter Russia's world wide foreign intervention
|
|
|
|
|
The two last times time EU wasn't together were called World War I and World War II. The time before gave birth to names like "The 30 years war". And the time before that were called the Dark Ages.
See for yourself how good that would be...
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
The EU does not exist to stop threats from Russia or any other 'outsider'. That's NATO's job and wouldn't be affected in the slightest by anyone leaving the EU. The job of the EU is to stop France and Germany beating the crap out of each other either militarily or economically. It can and will go on doing that even if every other member exits ... not that that is ever going to happen either.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
That would become a Fiexit I think, no ? 
|
|
|
|
|
I think one of the S countries should leave. Sexit.
|
|
|
|
|
Now if we can just get Texas to leave the U.S.
We can call it Texit
Along with Florida
Which we will call Flexit
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Async Properties?
Wouldn't it be cool if you could do this?
public async Customer SelectedCustomer
{
get { return _selectedCustmer; }
set
{
if (_selectedCustmer != value)
{
_selectedCustmer = value;
await GetCustomerAsync(_selectedCustmer);
}
}
}
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
modified 14-Apr-16 17:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: _selectedCustmer = value;
await GetCustomerAsync(_selectedCustmer);
Why? That's a horrible side-effect.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
oops
_selectedCustmer = value;
await GetCustomerAsync(_selectedCustmer.ID);
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
That's what methods are for.
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it...
To fire an Async method from a property, you would first have to call a synchronous method that fires the Async method.
So essentially You have blocking call.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I meant:
MSDN wrote: Do use a method, rather than a property, in the following situations.
The operation is orders of magnitude slower than a field set would be. If you are even considering providing an asynchronous version of an operation to avoid blocking the thread, it is very likely that the operation is too expensive to be a property. In particular, operations that access the network or the file system (other than once for initialization) should most likely be methods, not properties.
From Design guidelines, Choosing Between Properties and Methods[^]
|
|
|
|
|
And we know MSDN is always right.
There are many times when a property change triggers an async call. All Im suggesting is tha it start at the property
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: There are many times when a property change triggers an async call.
Actually, I tend to disagree. It's still a side-effect. A property setter should do only that -- set the underlying field value, which changes the state of the object for just that property. Doing anything else obscures the fact that the setter does something that potentially affects the rest of the application, or has additional hidden state changes of the object itself. If you really need an async operation, personally, I would code a method like await UpdateCustomer(selectedCustomer);, which is a lot clearer.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so the user drops down a list of customers. Requirements call for the newly selected customer to be loaded.
What calls UpdateCustomer(selectedCustomer)?
Combo bound to prop. Prop fires call to get Customer async.
Very common scenario.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: Combo bound to prop.
Ah, an interesting use case! Yeah, now that I understand the bigger picture, I see what you mean. Gotta love (not) how .NET makes it so easy to entangle the view, controller, and model.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Gotta love (not) how .NET makes it so easy to entangle the view, controller, and model.
The view is bound to the VM. That's how it's done. Not sure I get what you mean. You sound like you think this is a bad thing?
Of course you could wire up the combo's change event but that's just more code as apposed to a line of code in the prop's setter.
Not sure if I see one more advantages over the other.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: The view is bound to the VM.
ah ok.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. Isn't that the exact purpose of the INotifyPropertyChanged Interface?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
