|
No, the subset of C# i'm rendering is what is compliant with the CodeDOM. The CodeDOM itself is a genericized abstract-syntax-tree for representing code constructs. Those code constructs are rendered to a target language by a 3rd party "CodeDOM provider" - when people make languages for .NET they make a CodeDOM provider that introduces rendering for their language. "Stock" .NET distributions include a renderer for VB and C#.
Well, I don't like building those CodeDOM trees by hand, so I wrote "Slang" which takes a C# subset and turns it into a CodeDOM tree so that it can then be rendered into one of N target languages, including C# and VB
that's where VB comes into it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, now I get it.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I managed to successfully explain a thing. 
I feel good about that. LOL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Provide a compilation option to turn OFF the feature (and write decent documentation about  ).
|
|
|
|
|
There's an idea, although I'm not sure where to put it. I like this idea because it provides me a way out without having to do full op_XXXXX call support.
I'll certainly consider it. Thanks.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you support pre- and post increment operators for C#, but convert them to a full i = i + 1 in VB (or i += 1, which is supported)?
The pre- and post semantics would be gone, but that's what you get for wanting to use unsupported operators.
Maybe you could show a warning if you have those operators and target VB.
On a side note, I never use pre- and post increment operators and you can do completely without.
They're not THAT convenient and can be confusing if you don't fully understand them (everyone else on the team).
Even the people who say they understand it actually don't (in fact, I'm not even sure if I do).
For example, I wasn't able to predict the outcomes in this quiz[^] for the increment operators (I wonder how well you score!).
As far as I know you can choose to not support them and still do everything you want, but with less ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
|
The CodeDOM is about 80% complete in terms of language support. You can do most of what you can do in a regular language in the CodeDOM, just less ambiguously, as you say.
So you wouldn't have a problem using my tool as is. I think when the CodeDOM was designed VB.NET may not have supported those operators or maybe I'm wrong and they skipped them in the CodeDOM for other reasons.
Postfix is difficult to support because it would require me to internally insert a variable declaration into the code as it is being rendered in order to support it. I may do that in a future version but i'd have to alter how I'm using the codedom to be able to support it (this is backburnered because there's other reasons i want to do it too, like reintroducing switch/case support - simulated using ifs)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: like reintroducing switch/case support - simulated using ifs
I think that's how the compiler compiles up to three or four case switch statements, as if, else if, else...
How did you do on the quiz?
Or are you too ashamed to share?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not taking it at this hour and hamstringing myself. It's 2:20am
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Fontana, 1939-2019 | Tor.com[^]
Star Trek would likely have been less without her efforts. (Even if she was partly responsible for that "The way to Eden" monstrosity. Although it did get rewritten under her.)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the Add Solution to Subversion dialog is a checkbox "Commit files in the intial commit", defaulted to checked.
I unchecked this, and everything works as expected
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Hooray 
|
|
|
|
|
so you found the solution to find your solution
|
|
|
|
|
So, I have a server sitting next to my dev PC.
I went on the server and installed SVN Server and set it up. No problems there.
I went onto my Dev PC running VS2017 and install AnkhSVN via Tools => Extensions and Updates. No problem there. I then went to Tools => Source Control and selected AnkhSVN.
I then opened my solution, right-clicked on it, and go down towards the bottom of the menu and there's an Add to SVN option. Awesome!
I select that, and a dialog opens for me to specifiy the URl to the server. I fill that in, click OK, there's a pause for about 20 seconds. The SVN Checking window opens, so I know the AnkhSVN extension is working.
Then VS restarts, and there's no trace of SVN on the Solution menu. POOF! GONE!
Go back into Tools => Source Contro, AND GOD DAMN GIT IS SELECTED AGAIN!!!
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just this solution, or any solution that has this problem?
What sourcecontrol you're using is stored in the solution file, and if it's corrupt it will revert to default.
|
|
|
|
|
Try VisualSVN. I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see my plea for Git did not convince you
SVN, Visual SVN, Tortoise SVN, AnkhSVN... Good old times 
From what I remember I used AnkhSVN only briefly and worked with Visual SVN and Tortoise SVN for years.
|
|
|
|
|
We lost power during a UPS test (the UPS didn't switch on) since about 8:30. Because network connectivity is handled via the VOIP phones, and the switches and routers don't have power, even if we could turn our machines on, we can't do any real work becase we can't connect to any of the servers (which are also affected by the power outage, btw).
Nobody has any idea what went wrong, or when we'll have power back, so... I sat down with my laptop tethered to my phone so I could at least browse the web instead of sitting at my desk, strokin' Captain One-Eye...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: We lost power during a UPS test
I assume that means the test failed? 
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the rest of my OP says...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I assume that means the test failed?
It failed in the sense that it failed, but it was a success in the sense that it failed. Good test.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
