|
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#?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you can, but someone in a near future may say it's Hard Coded!! 
|
|
|
|
|
some might actually do. I know a person who says worlds ending soon, so lets not design!! 
|
|
|
|
|
An array with one element! Now that's thinking outside the box. 
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
I missed to recognize that.... have my vote of 5 for "eye for detail" lol 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, that would be a very logical thing to do if the size of the array could change and the requirement was that the last element of the array be set to that particular value. If that's the case, I'd prefer the "1" to be a const int rather than hardcoded. And some comments would also be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
In my "non-productive" (read "non-coding!") time I write parodies (Weird Al is my hero!)
Why this one didn't occur to me years ago, I do not know. Recently it came to me as I needed to write something for a team lunch, and today I decided to start working up a home recording of it.
Dedicated to my code geek colleagues -- and their mothers!
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Coders
Hope you enjoy a little fun on this 4th of July.
_______________________
Keith Chuvala
Friendswood, Texas USA
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense is not a gift it's a curse. Those of us who have it have to deal with those that don't....
Be careful which toes you step on today, they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow.
You can't scare me, I have children.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a moment ago..
private Visual GetChild<T>(FrameworkElement source)
{
if (source == null) return null;
var count = VisualTreeHelper.GetChildrenCount(source);
for (int i = 0; count > 0; count--)
{
var child = VisualTreeHelper.GetChild(source, i);
if (child is T)
return (Visual)child;
}
return null;
}
don't know what was in my mind!!  :facepalm:
|
|
|
|
|
Bit backwards today, are we?
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Ew, yuck, misuse of var, how could you? 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
