|
I use DevExpress Winforms controls and have never seen that method on any of them.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I don't work for that company anymore, so I haven't done WinForms or DevExpress in a while, but there was this navigation button bar control to which you could hook some IIDontRememberWhat. It was that interface which had the method
|
|
|
|
|
Located the interface (INavigatableControl) and the method now takes a NavigatorButtonType enum as the parameter.
At least it isn't stringly typed anymore.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
In a Project I had to use Marker Interfaces to make base-class varialbes for MEF Imports/Exports "handlable" - some MEF (ManagedExtensibilityFramework) in your Project?
|
|
|
|
|
You could spend all that time defining a way to use JIRA to slow down work, and get more credit and would be easier
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at? We use JIRA to make things easier ? I don't really care about gettin credit. I mean, everyone likes credit or being noticed, but I just like to code.
Ravichanadeepakarandescarar wrote: use JIRA to slow down work,
JIRA is a good tool !?!
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on the process flow and reduce the number of swivel chairs to reduce siloing resulting from diverged non-constrained islands of excellence as opposed to organization encompassing SME confluences.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, you sound pretty familiar. I see you just joined.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm trying to figure out how some code wires up...
Quote: ...there's an empty interface...
Quote:...Because all this stuff implements this interface... I tell you this. You need subtle knowledge to understand it. Meditate, Hummmmmmm
modified 31-Jul-16 18:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I found a novel (or at least weird and wonderful) way to avoid recursion when traversing the nodes in a TreeView.
Here's a teaser:
System.Windows.Forms.TreeNode nod = this.tvMain.SelectedNode as System.Windows.Forms.TreeNode ;
System.Collections.Generic.Stack<System.Collections.IEnumerator> sub =
new System.Collections.Generic.Stack<System.Collections.IEnumerator>() ;
sub.Push ( nod.Nodes.GetEnumerator() ) ;
Stay tuned for an article.
|
|
|
|
|
I see where this is coming!
One can say it's inspired by the way way assembly works! :P
But the important question: does it blend? Err... I mean.. is it fast?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it anything like this extension method[^]?
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Only in how it works; not in what it does.
I don't think that will work with TreeNodes because TreeNodes are not themselves IEnumerable and the Nodes property is a non-generic IEnumerable.
I can't even add that finally because IEnumerator (the non-generic one) is not IDisposable.
The Nodes Property also has the benefit of never being null, and the TreeNodeCollection has a Count Property.
What I'm doing also needs to know the stack depth for each Node.
There are other things that are unique to what I'm doing that a general method like that is unlikely to support.
And mine uses only one while loop and one Peek. Why are they so wasteful?
And, yes, I made an Extension Method for TreeNodes -- it's an alternative to ToString() .
Thanks for showing me that.
Interesting to see that I'm not the only one to think of this technique.
Hey, that one doesn't yield the root object? I think it needs work.
|
|
|
|
|
A quick manual trace and it adds the root IEnumerator and then enumerates it, yielding the objects. Then is goes on to get more enumerators.
It is used here[^] to flatten a directory tree to a list of files and folders.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the enumerator of the root, but not the root itself.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: System.Windows.Forms.TreeNode nod = this.tvMain.SelectedNode as System.Windows.Forms.TreeNode ; Why do you complain? That cast is really safe, isn't it?
And I am nod ding my head for his great capabilities in naming of variables.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that cast is very safe. However, originally I was casting to a custom derived TreeNode type, I could probably remove it now.
|
|
|
|
|
var fieldName = attributeVal.substring(0, attributeVal.length - 1);
It is javascript.
___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /
|
|
|
|
|
Why making things simple when you can over-complicate them?
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
phil.o wrote: Why making things simple when you can over-complicate them? Because we are men, not women.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Casual sexism alert.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Well that will work, but it is another example of why I have the sig that I do.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice find. But what will happen when attributeVal is null?
|
|
|
|
|
Then run time error would occur.
Actually null value is not a problem. The problem is, the style of assigning a string variable value to another variable.
___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the author wants the original string left unchanged? It is no longer an attribute value but now a fieldname so it makes sense to use a different variable? Have to admit, I don't really get this one
|
|
|
|