|
I am sorry for any inconvenience, I hope you are recovered. 
have a nice day,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mark!
You mean using binding redirection or publisher policy to solve this issue?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
The issue of binding redirection solution is, it needs to change client side app.config file. My confusion is, if we update some component, like a DLL, we can feel free to change anything about the component itself, but if we change the app.config for other component (e.g. the client who is using the DLL) is not good. Any comments?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
I'm trying to Select All text in a text box and set to cursor position to 0.
I've tryed a few things including :
this.textBox1.SelectionStart = this.textBox1.Text.Length;
this.textBox1.SelectAll();
however this sets the cursor position to the end of the Text.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Try setting the SelectionStart property to 0.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks John,
But the cursor is still placed at the end of the Text..
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
This is a wierd one - but so are many things with the text box - they really need to give us a new proper .net one instead of wrapping the native one.
Anyway - this is a 'dirty' solution but it works. Places the selection point at the end and Shift + Left Arrows for every character.
private void SelectAllReverse(TextBox control)
{
if (control.TextLength > 0)
{
control.SelectionStart = control.TextLength;
for (int i = 0; i < control.TextLength; i++)
{
SendKeys.Send("+{LEFT}");
}
}
}
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Great - Thanks for the Tip Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Just discovered  Shift + Home does the same thing so set the caret to the end and send that key combination and it will do it in one shot. 
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Try reversing the order of your statements so that you're highlighting first, and setting the cursor position second (the position still needs to be 0).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Ok cheers, I'll have a further play.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
How to retrieve sql database tables from the server for web application
|
|
|
|
|
"Need information quickly? No time to read about it? Check out these how-to videos."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/nl-nl/asp.net/bb498194(en-us).aspx#sql
|
|
|
|
|
What i want is,
accessing the system through public IP online & getting the sql database using c# through web applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Could someone perhaps give me a little more insight into the workings of the get and set properties?
Let's say I have the following class:
public class MyClass
{
private byte[] _myArray;
public byte[] MyArray
{
get { return _myArray; }
set { _myArray = value; }
}
public MyClass()
{
_myArray = new byte[10];
}
}
I can now access the member array of the class as follows:
byte[] NewArray = MyInstanceOfClass.MyArray;
and I can set it as follows:
MyInstanceOfClass.MyArray = new byte[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
or
MyInstanceOfClass.MyArray = NewArray;
In all three examples I'm accessing the entire array as a unit. Is it also correct to access only individual elements of the array? Does the get/set properties allow for that or am I supposed to set them up differently?
By writing a little test app it seems to be working but is this the correct way of doing it?
byte MyByte = MyInstanceOfClass.MyArray[5];
and
MyInstanceOfArray.MyArray[5] = 123;
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the content of an array is mutable.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now! ((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: the content of an array is mutable
To follow on, you would be better to use methods to access the elements rather then the array:
public byte getItem(int item)
{
return MyArray[item];
}
public void setItem(int item, byte value)
{
MyArray[item] = value;
}
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
williamnw wrote: To follow on, you would be better to use methods to access the elements rather then the array
Why is that? To me it just seems more unwieldy. Here's an example why I think so:
Let's say you I have two instances of the above class and I want to set the value in one instance to be one bigger than the corresponding value in the other instance.
Using the methods as you recommend it would look like this:
MyFirstInstance.setItem(i, MySecondInstance.getItem(i)+1);
whereas, if using the get/set properties, it would look like this:
MyFirstInstance.MyArray[i] = MySecondInstance.MyArray[i]+1;
Both work, but to me the second line is just much more readable. Also, if I use the methods as suggested, I don't have access to MyArray.Length or any of the member methods of System.Array unless I explicitly code them.
What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
You're missing that the data is not being hidden.
If you WANT the array to be changed by an eternal class, then expose it, but it's not a great idea.
If you want the elements to be exposed then use a method that hides the implimentation.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
Aha, so that's what mutability is. I've heard the term and read the quick definition - something like "a mutable class is one of which the contents can change". Duh! That hardly sounds like a useful description. At least now I have a practical example of where it becomes significant. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Dewald wrote: now I have a practical example of where it becomes significant.
Objects of the String class are immutable, and used quite often...that's a pretty
significant practical example
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, now I have two examples, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I understand in the rule of C#, we are not allowed to add public/private/protected qualifier to methods in interface. My question is why adding the qualifiers are not allowed? I want to know the reason behind the claimed rule, i.e. what issues will be if we are allowed to add qualifier?
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
There is no purpose of having qualifiers for the members of an interface. If they are not public, they are not useable at all.
A private member doesn't make sense at all. Making a member protected would only force you to implement it, but it would not be reachable for any code that uses the interface.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
