|
Oops!  I forgot to take off the ToString when I copy-n-pasted from the OP...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
This is a petard I've been hoisted by too many times .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Rated 5 for your use of that humorous and archaic phrase. 
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
in addition:
1:
combo.SelectedItem might be null and thus the call to ToString() will die in a less elegant way. I don't event think the ToString to return null if selectedItem is not null. Worst case is will return the object name.
2:
Should not use mystring == null but string.isNullOrEmpty(mystring) (unless "" is allowed.)
3:
Personal, but I genuinly hate if - else if code. I prefer switch in that case. switch also allows for a fall through so you can pass on combo.SelectedItem.ToString().ToUpper() as is to the VoidPayment where it is, in this case checked again.
4:
a nice variable assignment like
string combostringvalue = combo.SelectedItem.ToString().ToUpper() ;
would have been nice idd.
V.
|
|
|
|
|
Are there a fixed number of values? This sounds like a job for an enumerator[^].
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely a place to use an enumeration.
|
|
|
|
|
public class Field
{
private readonly string _field;
private readonly string _table;
Field()
{}
public Field(Field s)
{
_table = string.Copy(s.Table);
_field = string.Copy(s.Field);
}
}
string.Copy for what?
|
|
|
|
|
So that the immutable string value can be changed without affecting this class, obviously!
Just because you make something that can't be changed readonly doesn't mean you should take chances... 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah... original dev didn't took chances, but fore sure I have to. I'll kick on his a** next time i see him.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone told me that String.Copy is faster than raw assignment...
So
_field = string.Copy(s.Field);
might actually perform better than
_field = s.Field
Is he crazy or am I mad to not have known this??  
|
|
|
|
|
That guy used to be a C/C++ programmer. He wants to make sure that he copies the value, instead of referencing the original value. Just think of those terrible char *. C--!
|
|
|
|
|
What if I tell you he is an experienced C# developer
|
|
|
|
|
Only I noted the private default constructor that make this class impossible to instantiate? or there are more constructors?
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
FYI The default accessor is internal not private.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
Verify again, it's private, i just tested to make sure. ALL members of a class are private for default, there is no exception to constructors, i just tested like this:
My class:
public class Form
{
Form() {
}
}
i used a project that i was working on, so this is a MVC 3 project, my controller:
public class SurveyController : Controller
{
public SurveyController() {
Form form = new Form();
}
}
this yields this compiler error:
Error 1 'FormularioAvaliacaoSaude.Models.Formulario.Formulario()' is inaccessible due to its protection level C:\workspace\FormularioAvaliacaoSaude\FormularioAvaliacaoSaude\Controllers\PesquisaController.cs 22 31 FormularioAvaliacaoSaude
(sorry for don't translating the paths on the error message, but i fell like i'll screw it up if i do it...)
by this error i make the conclusion that the default Access Modifier.
...
Just run into this on MSDN:
The declaration of the empty constructor prevents the automatic generation of a default constructor. Note that if you don't use an access modifier with the constructor it will still be private by default. However, the private modifier is usually used explicitly to make it clear that the class cannot be instantiated.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry my bad. I thought it was internal. You are right
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
In Java it is package-visible (pretty close to internal) ... and bizarrely, there is no explicit way to specify this access level!
|
|
|
|
|
This has got me a little interested. By not making a copy, could that stop the GC from disposing of Field s until this instance is also ready for collection?
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
No - because it creates a binary copy of the string content rather than the reference: I have no idea why MS though copying an immutable object would be a necessary thing to do, but there you go1... Copying the reference could stop the GC, provided the reference didn't get dereferenced itself.
1Thinking about it, it could be handy in two cases: if there is ever a ReferenceEquals on the strings, then the copy will be different, and if the string is passed to unmanaged code which messes it up - the later being very, very nasty though. I would hand a StringBuilder instead just for safety.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this creates another internalized copy for the string, if that is util or not, i can't say...
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
String.Copy does create a new internal copy of the string data (rather than copy the reference as a normal string assignment would).
That is precisely why the original code is so bad! It creates unnecessary copies of the string data for no obvious reason where an assignment would be faster, better for memory use, and easier to read...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
So the String.Copy() must be used if one wants to pass a string to a P/Invoke call? i don't get why this would be better than passing a StringBuilder...
well, i've got to far 
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
Gawd no! Use a StringBuilder instead! Passing an immutable object to a function known to change it is very nasty indeed (as I said earlier).
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
I understand... well, there are some things that are better to do not know for what are used...
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
array = new T[1];
array[array.Length - 1] = handler;
is
array[0] not allowed in c#?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
