|
Well no, it's not that, is it? We're talking about strongly typed definitions here.
It's really just a syntactic clean-up for C# where you will often see lines like:
Product product = new Product();
There's definite redundancy in there as "product" has to be an instance of "Product". So:
Product product = new();
makes far more sense in terms of readability and write-ability. It might seem a like a trivial saving but when you're dealing with a deep chain of namespaces and/or lengthy class names, it's going to save an awful lot of code clutter and prevent a fair bit of line wrapping.
It's not earth shaking but it's a nice little feature.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
- What's wrong with:
var product = new Product(); - This can lead to problems with derived classes:
abstract class ProductBase {}
class Product1 : ProductBase {}
class Product2 : ProductBase {}
ProductBase product = new();
IOW, this is totally unnecessary.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
"Var Wars" have been fought many times over at very great length with very little agreement, so I'll leave that can of worms firmly closed. 
As I understand it, this change will only apply in situations where only one class can possibly apply. Where ambiguity arises from derivations (as it often will) a full specification, I presume, would still be required.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
This past year we’ve addressed some of history’s most important innovations in our Today in Technology blog and video series. Our focus is always on what we can learn from the past and apply to today’s issues. As this was coming from the Microsoft President, I was assuming icons would be in here somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey requested: This past year we’ve addressed some of history’s most important innovations in our Today in Technology blog and video series. Our focus is always on what we can learn from the past and apply to today’s issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahah! Well spotted
Drink your ovaltine!
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Drink your ovaltine!
  You must be a fellow member of Annie's Secret Circle!
|
|
|
|
|
It's cute the way that they open the article on the ms blog site, but then continue it in linkedin -- once again, using a third party to do the data slurping, to provide themselves with a scapegoat, when the privacy sh1t hits the fan.
[note to self: add ms blog site alongside e-mails and ms-office docs in the list of places where not to click links]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Our focus is always on what we can learn from the past and apply to today’s issues.
Total bullsh1t, they don't learn anything... they just make it worse (at least in some important aspects).
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't number 1 be: lack of proper testing?
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers at the University of Wollongong, Deakin University, Monash University and Kyushu University have developed a framework that could be used to build a smart, AI-powered agile project management assistant I think I just filled my buzzword bingo card
|
|
|
|
|
In many of the places I've worked, any kind of intelligence in project management would make a welcome change.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "Realizing the vision set out in our paper is a big project and we are actively looking for industry partners to collaborate with us in developing parts or the full framework."
Obligatory Dilbert cartoon...[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
We keep you accountable. You get stuff done. Is it done yet? How about now? Now?
I'm definitely not in their target market.
|
|
|
|
|
Aha!
I knew the missus had built a new web-site, but now I know why she's not nagging me as much as normal!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of different ways to track email, and different techniques can lie anywhere on the spectrum from marginally acceptable to atrocious. "No such number, no such zone."
|
|
|
|
|
So, the thousands of words of waffle boil down to two ways "to protect yourself from email tracking":
0. Open e-mails as plain-text only.
1. Don't click links in e-mails.
I believe I've given the same advice, time and time again, in 25 words or less.
In fact, I just did so again, above.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So... the best practice has not changed in well over 20 years
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
MadMyche wrote: So... the best practice has not changed in well over 20 years
Not even a little bit -- they weren't broken (they've just had thousands of unnecessary words added to the instructions, apparently).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The US government shutdown is making many official websites harder to access and potentially leaving users more vulnerable, tech experts are warning. Well, it is a 'shutdown', isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter's still working, though, so all the important government work is still getting done.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Security researchers have been warning about a simple technique that cybercriminals and email scammers are already being using in the wild to bypass security features of Microsoft Office 365, including Safe Links, which are originally designed to protect users from malware and phishing attacks. Hacking between the lines
Still, kudos to them for a clever idea. And cleavers to them for doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Golly.
That should take, oh, at least four minutes to fix.
Not that it should need to be, because no-one could possibly be so frugging stupid as to click links in e-mails or open ms office docs from unknown sources.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: because no-one could possibly be so frugging stupid as to click links in e-mails or open ms office docs from unknown sources.
Do we bet? 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Not that it should need to be, because no-one could possibly be so frugging stupid as to click links in e-mails or open ms office docs from unknown sources.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
