|
Ok, can understand the type error thing, but still.. Since I declare the enum as a int ( through :int ) I thought I could use the enum fields as constant ints. It would give a nice looking code. And since the compiler knews it is an int I can´t really see the problem.
/ M
|
|
|
|
|
Mikke_x wrote:
And since the compiler knews it is an int I can´t really see the problem.
Yes, the compiler knows it is an int. And the compiler is forcing you to know it is an int also. If you have many developers on a team and one comes across your enum in use somewhere and they start using it willy-nilly then bad things can happen. So, the compiler forces the developer to declare that they explicitly want the enum value as an int because you are still losing type safety. This way, if yet another developer comes along later and looks at the code they will know exactly what is going on.
The above analogy can also apply if you are a lone developer also - many times I've gone back to code I've written a year or two back and I'm tracing though code line by line for something that at the time was quite natural. If I see an explicit cast I can understand things better and quicker than with an implicit cast. Implicit casts are by their nature hidden, there is nothing on the surface to indicate they go on.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
I would really stay away from converting Enums to ints.
One scenario it bit me in the ass was when I was saving Enum to a file by converting it to an int and then back.
The enum was like:
enum
{
One,
Two,
Three
...
}
and some other developer decided that they need OneAndHalf, so now the enum is:
enum
{
One,
OneAndHalf,
Two
}
now, when the object is loaded all Twos become OneAndHalf.
See why it's bad?
|
|
|
|
|
enums and casting them to ints are not "bad". The explicit cast requirement is to make sure you think about what you are doing. On a number of projects I've worked on I've converted enums to/from ints frequently so that in the C# code the developer will not use invalid values and when it is stored in an int field in SQL Server it can be stored as an integer.
Werdna wrote:
See why it's bad?
Your example is bad, but the concept is not.
Taking your example, and extending it you get:
enum
{
One = 1,
Two = 2,
Three = 3
}
If you insert a new value you give it a new number. So long as you make sure you have no duplicates then everything works out fine. Using this approach also forces the developer to think about what is going on - something that sadly doesn't seem to happen very often.
Also, I use enums frequently when using interop because Native API calls use a defined set of flags but it receives them as an int, although in C/C++ there would be lots of #defines making up the defined set of values. To pass these enums in to Native API interop calls you have to cast it to an int.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that putting values in enum is better, but if you work on a project with multiple people and have an enum without values, then next developer has no idea that you're using it as ints.
The solution I'm using now, is to store it as string and then use Enum.Parse to get the value back. I know it's quite a bit slower, but works better if enum is changing a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Werdna wrote:
The solution I'm using now, is to store it as string and then use Enum.Parse to get the value back.
Eeuch! Sorry, but that is horrible.
Two things to mitigate this problem are:
1. Ensure the values are specified in advance. A good design should bing out most, if not all, the values you will need.
2. If it isn't known in advance [like the client changes their mind a lot, or you need to create space for future versions.] then space the numbers out - just like old fasioned programming languages where the line numbers would jump by 10 each time so you had space to add in additional code afterwards if needed.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I see what you mean. But I still can´t see the point of beeng able to declare an enum as:
enum ints :int {zero, one} if I can´t use it as constant int without convert. enum has always been an int in the background. If it is to be saved to file or something one should comment the code good enought so that the other people in the team knows not to change the order of the declarations. Or do them visible by:
enum ints { zero=0, one=1 } ; Then there should be no problem.
/ M
|
|
|
|
|
Mikke_x wrote:
Yeah, I see what you mean. But I still can´t see the point of beeng able to declare an enum as:
enum ints :int {zero, one} if I can´t use it as constant int without convert
The explicit cast is a safety mechanism - no matter how good your comments are you are not going to force someone to read them unless they have to. Most people muddle along all through their lives, programmers included. They only tend to look for something if they need to. The compiler forces them to need to.
The enum is there to say here is a type that can contain a set of possible values. If you want to assign it to an integer the compiler makes you explicity cast it to an integer (it probably does nothing when compiled - I've never checked the IL for that) because it is ensuring that you are fully aware that what you are doing is stripping off the protective layer that the enum is providing around the underlying int.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I have 3 columns being read and displayed in a dataGrid. I want to trap the event when the 2nd column comes to focus.
How do I do this?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I usually get chastised for missing an important detail or simpler method everytime I give advice, but I still like to try. 
I would imagine your columns are just DataGridTextBoxColumns, since you didn't specify. Is there an event for when the grid gets focus, which you can simply see which cell has focus and determine if it's in the correct row? I'm too lazy to look myself. 
If not, you could try making a new class which inherits the DataGridTextBoxColumn. In this class, you can have control of the textbox control which shows when a cell in the grid is activated. You can handle any events you want with the textbox. So, you can set the style of the grid so that the second column uses this new class, and the others just use the regular DataGridTextBoxColumn class.
Good luck, hope I helped.
|
|
|
|
|
Application Tools :Pocket PC 2003 , WINCE.NET , .NET CF , VC#
My startup form has 6 buttons ..each allowing user to jump to next screen.
Also every other screen returns to startup screen.
When I execute the application & navigate thru.
Every time i see a new instance of my startup form created at background.
i.e, when i leave my startup screen that particular instance doen't get closed/disposed.
My project requirements doesn't allow me to do FindWindow and DestroyWindow.
Could anyone suggest me why it is happenning and how to control it.
Thanks,
Ratna
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
i.e, when i leave my startup screen that particular instance doen't get closed/disposed.
It better not get closed, otherwise your app will quit.
Anonymous wrote:
When I execute the application & navigate thru.
Every time i see a new instance of my startup form created at background.
Is this new instance being created by the new form you .Show()? Your new form show NOT be creating a new instance of your main form. Your new form show just close gracefully and control will return to the main form.
This is all speculation, of course, because we haven't seen any code that show's what your forms are doing when they get created and closed.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
........................................
Application.Exit will quit my application.
Form.Close/Dispose will close all child windows and then close itself.
But why is it creating multiple instance.
When you are running application ... go to memory-running programs ..u will see all the instances of form running.
Thats were i detected this problem.
................................
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Application.Exit will quit my application.
Form.Close/Dispose will close all child windows and then close itself.
The end result is the same...
Anonymous wrote:
When you are running application ... go to memory-running programs ..u will see all the instances of form running.
I don't have a Pocket PC, or the development environment...
Like I said, we haven't seen any code, so we can't tell you wants going wrong. Also, questions related to Pocket PC are better handled in the Embedded/Mobile Forum.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Hi!
It is hard to tell by the information you have provided, but if i understand correct you run the first form as the main thread. Then you try to open several other forms from that form, and then close the first form.
But if you have made the first form the main thread, this will not close untill you end he program.
To avoyd the problem, try to not call the forms from the other form, have a background main thread that handles all forms.
Hope this make sence
regards
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there!
I'm doing a network application which send and receive files. Here's a quick description of the app:
1. It can receive files from multiple user at the same time.
2. A) When I want to receive from a different user I have to open another port.
B) I'm using sockets, that's reason for point "2. A)" :P
Now, I want to be able to receive multiple files from multiple users at the same time but with only one port. Like file sharing apps (Kazaa, eMule ,etc.) How can I do this?
Thanks a lot
Gimpy1983
----------------------
Be proud. Be yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I added a new project of type 'setup wizard' for 'a windows application'. All the files in the resulting setup install into the same directory. How can I get the install to distribute files in the same directory structure as the 'Source Path'?
There is a folder property for each item to be installed, but it does not let me set and explicit path.
thansk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell you how what? I don't see anything - It just redirects to the home page.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Oh.. cm'on.. It is there.. refresh the page..
ok It's the left colum in a datagrid I want to remove it.
_____________________________________________________
Believe! Every thing has a purpose
|
|
|
|
|
Everything you wanted to know about DataGrid but were too afraid (ok you weren't) to ask.
http://www.syncfusion.com/FAQ/WinForms/FAQ_c44c.asp
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
thanx.. and I have asked a few questions on datagrid.. I will ask more..
That link is big!! It's sturday tomorrow.. I plan to watch spiderman2.
so.. push the FAQ onto monday!
_____________________________________________________
Believe! Every thing has a purpose
|
|
|
|
|
I have created two forms:
One for the details, in which you can search on a particular field. If you right-click the field and click search, you get a form with a grid displaying the search results.
The second form uses the same dataset, with a dataview in front of it. So the forms are linked to the same datasource. But I want to synchronize them, so If I double-click a record in the grid I get the details of the record in the detail form.
How can I do this?
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't recommend sharing the CurrencyManager, which wouldn't work anyway since your binding contexts are technically different (one form binds to a DataSet while the other binds to a DataView, even though it is over a DataTable within the same DataSet - binding contexts must be exactly the same).
I would recommend using the event model. Define an event on one or both of the forms (depending on whether or not you want one-way or two-way synchronization) that when a button is clicked (or whatever you use for navigation), an event is also raised that the other form handles and increments it's CurrencyManager.Position as well. This also gives you a little more flexibility with future development.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
My Articles
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
