|
Don Kackman wrote: Sweet! You owe me $20!
 Um, we didn't shake on it. 
Don Kackman wrote: All of the above mixed in with loops, branches and other objects being used.
I agree with that 100%, but I blame the programmer for it rather than the language construct is what I'm trying to get at.
Don Kackman wrote: I think the with statement is really nothing more than a reaction to VB's excess verbosity, saving some keystrokes and sacrificing readability and maintainability.
Most of the time I used it, it wasn't the fault of VB's verbosity but rather I wanted to clean my code up a bit with longer object naming, etc. I reckon to each his own, but methinks the abuse of it is the real issue more than having it available to use when needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I reckon to each his own, but methinks the abuse of it is the real issue more than having it available to use when needed.
True.
But you still owe me $20!
|
|
|
|
|
Don Kackman wrote: But you still owe me $20!
Um, talk to my assistant about that. What? Who's my assistant? Oh, um, yeah, ask my assistant about that one too.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually a little surprised that C# 3 didn't see something like it already (aside from the new member initialization syntax.)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
