|
Yes, of course.
OK, here's what I use:
System.Windows.Forms.Application.ExecutablePath
and sometimes I pass that through
System.IO.Path.GetFileNameWithoutExtension()
modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Yes, of course.
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Individuality is fine, as long as we do it together - F. Burns
|
|
|
|
|
Get the current process using Process.GetCurrentProcess()
Then use the ProcessName or MainModule property.
«_Superman_»
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that'll work reliably.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean, we would not always get the filename ?
«_Superman_»
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a guarantee that the process name is the filename?
On the other hand I just tried it and it seems to be reliable.
At least it knows if I change the file name.
I may need to look into it further.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you might as well you the GetModuleFileName API
«_Superman_»
|
|
|
|
|
That may have a problem if called from a different assembly?
I guess stick with System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess().MainModule.FileName.
I suppose might System.Windows.Forms.Application.ExecutablePath call that.
|
|
|
|
|
You can use Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName() in .Net and if you want file path then you can use this one[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If main calls a library routine in another assembly and that routine does that, you'll get the name of the library assembly, not the assembly containing main.
|
|
|
|
|
Ive got a class library project set up, and its set for 3.5 framework.(Im actually following a tutorial online).
However, when I reference a IList<t>, I get no extension method in the list, such as ToArray<t>.
Im defining an object as:
IList<int> results = new List<int>();
var convertedtoArray = results.ToArray<int>();
But I can compiler error because ToArray doesnt exist. Even though Im using the System.Collections.Generic namespace.
Any ideas?
Mark
modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
You must have a reference to the assembly in your project, not just a using statement.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
System.Collections.Generic sits in the System.Core assembly, which is referenced by default. 
|
|
|
|
|
No, only part of it.
System.Collections.Generic.List<> is in mscorlib assembly, while System.Collections.Generic.Queue<> is in System assembly.
Eslam Afifi
|
|
|
|
|
using System.Linq;
and reference System.Core
Eslam Afifi
|
|
|
|
|
using System.Linq, thats the one.
Thanks Eslam!
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
Eslam Afifi
|
|
|
|
|
Therein lies a great deal of what I don't like about extension methods.
|
|
|
|
|
and what might that be?
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
People not knowing where they are and not even knowing that they are extension methods.
At least as regular static methods it's clearer that the method is not part of the type.
Exension methods are a form of obfuscation.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: even knowing that they are extension methods.
VS shows extension methods with a different icon in intellisense, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Not everyone uses VS. Snippets of code posted here don't have intellisense either. Nor do printouts
Don't rely on the behaviour of any one tool.
modified on Friday, January 23, 2009 1:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
The semantics of an extension method are correct, and they increase code readability. They are certainly preferable than buggering up the type heirarchy with things like "MyListWithExtraStuff : List". They also allow you to extend any type which supports a particular interface, which is a powerful feature - almost like half-baked multiple inheritance.
myFoo.Baz(bar);
Is Baz an extension method? Does it matter? As long as it "bazzes" as documented, then it is no different from a normal method.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Churchill wrote: The semantics of an extension method are correct
Because they added those semantics.
Mark Churchill wrote: they increase code readability
My opinion is that they do just the opposite.
Mark Churchill wrote: any type which supports a particular interface
Just like regular static methods.
Mark Churchill wrote: almost like half-baked multiple inheritance
You may be onto something there. Or maybe just on something. 
Mark Churchill wrote: Does it matter?
Of course it makes a difference. Not to the original developer, not to the compiler, but when communicated between developers, particularly inexperienced ones.
I'm well aware that I take the minority view on this and many other things, but I'm not the only one. Others [weasel words] have the same and other concerns. I do write an occasional extension method (see my recent "Untabify and Tabify"[^] article), but I try to make it clear that extension methods are in use.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to use a bluetooth device as though it were a socket. I am aware that this can be done using WINSOCK and P/Invoke, but to be honest I really don't want to put myself through that just yet  . With WMI I can get the MAC address that the BT Dongle is using, but can I use the MAC Address to create a socket with .NET?
Scott P
"Simplicity carried to the extreme becomes elegance."
-Jon Franklin
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
