|
Nope, don't miss it at all.
With Intellisense, it's really not needed (and Intellicode is even better at it) - I'd rather be able to see what I'm dealing with than hunt back through code to find out what I'm affecting (and if I move or copy code that could lead to trouble).
Why would you think you need it? It's bad enough that the terminally lazy use var for everything making maintenance hard enough - do we really need other VB "they can't handle the truth" constructs as well?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that I can do without most of it. However, as I've adapted it (see illustration), it seems to me that it is very much in harmony with the spirit of C#, which favors brevity whenever it makes sense.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of hunting back through the code, C# 7 gives us this little gem:
if (int.TryParse(input, out int result))
Console.WriteLine(result);
else
Console.WriteLine("Could not parse input");
You get to declare variables in the call to TryParse, or any other method that takes out parameters.
I no likey. I would class this as one of C#'s little "you can't handle the truth" constructs. The docs says it makes the code easier to read. I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I respectfully disagree.
Well, of course you would. It should obviously be:
if (int.TryParse(input, out var result)) ... 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I can see what they are trying to do - scope the variable to just the code where the result is actually valid:
{
int result;
if (int.TryParse(input, out result))
Console.WriteLine(result);
else
Console.WriteLine("Could not parse input");
}Only it's out of scope in the else block.
And that does make some good sense.
But it is ugly - I'll get used to it and it should improve reliability in the long term.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The scope of result isn't just the true side of the if statement. It's everywhere in the parent scope after the if statement, except for the else block. Get some noob writing a 500 line method and you run into that same problem where you're hunting for where the variable is declared.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave, I, also, find the in-line 'out variable declaration ... and its persistence beyond what my habitual perceptions suggest should be limited scope ... jarring.
I think it needs a little more spice to be really useful in creating FUD:
Console.WriteLine($"result: {(int.TryParse(input, out var result) ? result.ToString() : "no")}");The fact that the in-line 'result variable will persist even in this example ... don't feel right. And, use of 'var in this case seems, intuitively, wrong.
But, perhaps these little frissons of cognitive dissonance are just evidence for the old conundrum of 'old dogs cannot learn new tricks' ?
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
That code is ..... disturbing.
I think about half the new features showing up in C# now are just for syntactic sugar. This is one where I think the community of old-timers would be split on its usefulness vs how many people would actually use it.
I'd be interested in seeing any telemetry on its use.
|
|
|
|
|
Foo.Bar = 123;
Foo.Baz = @"Zap!";
Foo.Goo = 3.14159;
Foo.Ergo = 1.1414141414l4; is two lines shorter 
noop()
|
|
|
|
|
So? How many more characters, each requiring a keystroke, does your proposal require?
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Considering a new line is two-characters long on Windows (CrLf):
* -5 (with ) on the first line
* -4 ( }CrLf) on the first line
* -3 (}CrLf) on the last line
So 12 characters less, plus three times Foo -> -12 + 9 = -3
In the end, mine seems 3 characters shorter than yours.
But the number of characters is not really important; I do not feel the with construct makes the code clearer, just more bloated.
noop()
|
|
|
|
|
Used it mostly in Visual FoxPro; and in VB.
Less code; clearer outlines; more generic possibilities.
Yep; totally useless.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
You really want 'With in C#: [^]. This hack uses reflection ... I'd never use it in production code: [^]
And, now, the "sermon:" I think it's a mistake to try and "bend" C# to fit your background in another language. At the same time, imho, most people will, in the first phase of learning, look for, expect, things/structures through mental habits conditioned by other languages. I believe (hypothesis) that programmers often have a kind of imprinting/bonding experience with the first language they learn well.
Surrender ! 
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
modified 18-May-19 11:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you see my terse example? Do you like typing the class name in front of every member name in a code block that sets ten properties one after another?
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Did I see the code sample that would never compile [^]: yes. Did I see a reference in another post you made to something "illustrated" without explanation: yes.David A. Gray wrote: Do you like typing the class name in front of every member name in a code block that sets ten properties one after another?
I do not see how this "sucker-punch question" is relevant to anything discussed here
Beginning with the object initializer syntax in C# (C# 3.0, .NET 3.5), initializing a bunch of whatever when a new object was created became much easier. What's your issue here ?
If you want to simulate 'With, techniques are well known, for a long time (see my post here). Now, if you have a better way, that doesn't use reflection, or the usual Extension Method: I'm all ears !
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
It was a random thought, intended to generate the sort of discussion that has ensued. As a practical matter, I use object initializers, overloaded constructors, and constructors that have optional arguments almost exclusively. Unfortunately, this isn't always a workable option; thankfully, those times are rare.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it did generate discussion
And, I wouldn't mind having a 'With, or a special flavor of 'Using.
cheers, Bill
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: a special flavor of 'Using
That's what I had in mind, but I wanted to see whether anybody else had the same idea.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
imho, while using 'using seems intuitive ... compared to 'with ... the fact that 'using already plays multiple semantic roles in C# argues against it.
The word 'context comes to mind as descriptive and mnemonic in this scenario, but, I don't think Mads would go for it 
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I think it's a mistake to try and "bend" C# to fit your background in anothr language.
I'd agree - and suspect that's what a lot of the recent C# changes have been driven by: VB and C++ developers which want to continue writing VB and C++ code in C# instead of learning a newer, fresher language paradigm. And maybe that's why C# is getting "bloated" and losing it's focus as a coherent language.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: VB and C++ developers which want to continue writing VB and C++ code in C# instead of learning a newer, fresher language paradigm
Not to mention it will rightly piss off the other members of your team when they run across your code in the project.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still doing some programming in VB.Net.
I never use With.
|
|
|
|
|
Just assign whatever you'd usually with with to a variable with a short name.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago, I wrote an expression evaluator for a Pascal compiler. "With" provided extra levels of complexity, which made me dislike it.
"With" in VB leads to ambiguities when nested as you can have multiple sets of 'withed' variables in the same inner block. 'with' (now deprecated) in JavaScript lead to ambiguities where you could loop the 'with' and variables in the same construct could be global in one pass and local in subsequent passes.
Used carefully, "With" can be a convenient shortcut; but it can be used badly. If you give people knives, they may whittle beautiful sculptures, but they are more likely to injure themselves or someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
I got the same speak a few years ago when I would introduce LINQ into an answer because I was not catering to the lowest common denominator.
Those same people now have no issues with it. (LINQ)
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
