|
|
s1.ToLower().IndexOf( s2.ToLower() )
|
|
|
|
|
I usually use a System.Text.RegularExpression object with the
RegexOptions.IgnoreCase option applied. Here's an example of a string replace function I use for this:
private string CaseInsensitiveReplace(string sMain, string sReplaceThis,
string sWithThis)
{
return Regex.Replace(sMain, sReplaceThis, sWithThis,
RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
}
You could use the Match method of a Regex object to perform a find.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I was experimenting on the printing functions and found out you can get a lot of information about a printer trough System.Drawing.Printing.PrinterSettings. But I'm missing the minimum margins where the printer can print.
Most printers can't print to the edges of a page. These margins varies for eacht printer. Where can we find this information?
The Margins class allow to set margins, but it doesn't get the minimum margins of a specific printer. What I need is really the margin where a printer can't print.
For example a HP OfficeJet d155 minimum margins are
Left: 0,34 cm
Right: 0,93 cm
Top: 0,00 cm
Bottom: 0,67 cm
How can we get this information in .NET (maybe in pixels or inches)?
thx
|
|
|
|
|
I was able to add 15,000 strings to a list box in C# about 3 times faster than using MFC. It makes me wonder if .NET uses virtual list boxes. Anyone know?
When all else fails, there's always delusion.
- Conan O'Brien
|
|
|
|
|
I added half a million (424,379) and it took roughly about 5 minutes....
How long did yours take?
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
The 15,000 items took about .1 seconds in .NET. My original test was taking .35 seconds in MFC/C++. After some work, the tests on a different, slower, system took .2 seconds in .NET and .4 seconds in MFC.
Do note that on additions as large as yours, paging starts affecting performance.
When all else fails, there's always delusion.
- Conan O'Brien
|
|
|
|
|
for(int i=0; i<data.Length; i++)
{
logForm.listBoxLog.Items.Add(DateTime.Now.ToString("hh:mm:ss:ff")+": ["+data[i].ToString()+"]");
}
and i'm guessing that the "DateTime.Now" is slowing it down too, correct?
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not as much as you might think. The DateTime functionality will be paged in and in such a tight loop may be entirely in the CPU secondary cache. In smaller amounts, the memory allocator in .NET is more efficient than that in C++, but I've already accounted for that by testing with preallocated objects.
Of course adding a hundred thousand items to a list box is generally a bad idea, thus the question as to whether the .NET box is a virtual box.
When all else fails, there's always delusion.
- Conan O'Brien
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use an obfuscator. VS.Net 2003 comes with one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, what he said 
|
|
|
|
|
Xarx wrote:
Anyway to stop programs from being decompiled?
The most common way is to use an obfuscator. Obfuscators change the names of the members in an app so that the person decompiling it can;t as easily make sense of it (which is easier to figure out the meaning of: "CustomerListView.AddItem(...)", or "Member25.Member33(...)" ?). There's one that comes with VS.NET, but if you're doing serious work, you'll need a more advanced version.
Another way is to compile the executable into native code. There's an app, .NET Protector[^], that does this for you.
Xarx wrote:
i was able to decompile most of WebMatrix
Hmm... could you send me the code?  Just kidding, but I would like to know how they show ASP.NET controls in the HTML designer.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there something like .NET Protector that is free by any chance?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
I wish there was... 
|
|
|
|
|
jdunlap wrote:
Another way is to compile the executable into native code. There's an app, .NET Protector[^], that does this for you.
Am I missing something or does this look like a glorified ngen? 
When I can talk about 64 bit processors and attract girls with my computer not my car, I'll come out of the closet. Until that time...I'm like "What's the ENTER key?"
-Hockey on being a geek
|
|
|
|
|
David Stone wrote:
Am I missing something or does this look like a glorified ngen?
Well, ngen creates native images, but those images unfortunately cannot be transferred to another computer.
|
|
|
|
|
jdunlap wrote:
but those images unfortunately cannot be transferred to another computer.
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that they could...
When I can talk about 64 bit processors and attract girls with my computer not my car, I'll come out of the closet. Until that time...I'm like "What's the ENTER key?"
-Hockey on being a geek
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with ngen is that it still relies on the non-ngened copy. Next time you ngen an executable, try removing the original and then running it. It won't work.
if (!Signature.Exists())
{
// TO DO: Add Signature here
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, thank you...I didn't realize that...turns out you're right. 
When I can talk about 64 bit processors and attract girls with my computer not my car, I'll come out of the closet. Until that time...I'm like "What's the ENTER key?"
-Hockey on being a geek
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Is there a diagram work which is done in .NET except northwoods godiagram and netron???
Thanx...
|
|
|
|
|
There is also:
- AddFlow for .NET from Lassalle Technologies.An evaluation version can be downloaded at: http://www.lassalle.com/download.htm#.NET
- Metadraw from Bennet-Tec
- ERM3 from Crainiate
2 remarks:
- AddFlow is the best
- I am the author of AddFlow
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
First of all:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, the following represents my opinion, I'm not perfect in OO and c# programming, so I want good arguments against or for it, to make a clear decision at the end (and of course learn something from that!) 
I'm to contribute to a "not-so-small" c# project and the problem is that I can't come on to one of the conventions:
Forms are designed as normal with clicking, BUT (for the argument of separating design from functionality which I can't support in this case), there exists an additional class (and file) for each form, an adapter.
For example:
------------
The form frmMain is designed and in the constructor is the following statement:
_frmAdapter = new frmMainAdapter( this );
and in the adapters constructor:
frmMainAdapter( frmMain frm )
{
_frm = frm;
}
So far ok, but now are ALL used members (for example text boxes etc.) are declared as internal.
example:
previously:
-----------
private System.Windows.Forms.Button btnOK;
becomes:
--------
internal System.Windows.Forms.Button btnOK;
to be accessible from within the adapter.
If I want to, for example, add an event handler, I have to do the following in the adapter:
_frm.btnOK.Click += new EventHandler(btnOK_Click);
//That btnOK_Click is a method within the adapter.
Now my opinion:
---------------
I find that design highly disturbing and wrong, because the changes to "internal" violates a lot of the idea of accession levels in classes (in this case) and since only the adapter needs access from the outside, the whole thing becomes some kind of "psychological friend class" (hope you understand what I mean).
Now I cant check what functions will be executed and which events are associated with the controls in the form, because everything is moved into the adapter. So some features of the IDE are also eliminated with that.
Sure, one can argue for separating design from functionality, but in this case (can anyone strengthen this argument??) - C# forms - design is a part of functionality (at least I think so...) and it makes no sense to make such a separation.
Those are my two arguments against that design, can anyone proof that? or make arguments for such a design? add some more arguments for or against? Is it generally a bad design or only in this case? or only in this case not?
I'm eagerly waiting for your answers!!!
Thank You
JosefS
|
|
|
|
|
In your example, it looks to me like you get all the inconvieniences of separation with none of the benefit. In particular, there is still heavy dependencies between the two classes and neither can live without the other. So what's the point?
The best reason to separate is to make both classes simpler: a click event may make some other controls invisible and set a property in the controller class. The controller changes state and fires a bind method on the form. Now, you can easily test the controller and the form is simpler too.
Philip Nelson
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
, since you imply that a case insensitive string-search is not always possible at all. 
