|
This whole discussion is irrational and will never end.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're just being asymptotic.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I was being natural and you go all negative.
But I will log your comment.
Now I want to go eat some pi.
|
|
|
|
|
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
...
PS: I even found a bug in posting this, there is a newline between i and ii however it doesn't work...
modified 10-May-18 21:26pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone knows Roman keyboards didn't have lowercase.
|
|
|
|
|
They do nowadays. They didn't at first, initially they hadn't any point or punctuation.
Wikipedia: Minuscule (lower-case) letters were developed in the Middle Ages, well after the demise of the Western Roman Empire, and since that time lower-case versions of Roman numbers have also been commonly used: i, ii, iii, iv, and so on.
In the MS Word "Numbering Library" both casings are available.
int i=1; has three points; you could try and avoid some of them, however we all learned today you don't prefer var over int ...
|
|
|
|
|
Now go respond to the post about the Sieve of Eratosthenese.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer, my friend, is floating in the int...
|
|
|
|
|
Best played on a custom bankrupt Gibson guitar:
Codeproject BOB sang:
Yes, and how many seas must our mascot Bob sail?
Before he sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the homework questions fly?
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the int.
The answer is blowing in the int.
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: Best played on a custom bankrupt Gibson guitar Indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just not that integer
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Comma to think of it, it's called a thousand separator
|
|
|
|
|
public async Task<Result> LoadData()
{
...
var result = new Result();
...
return result;
}
The signature says I'm returning a Task of type Result, but the code says I'm returning the type itself.
I know what's going on. It just feels...clunky.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's just you.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Yes just him... That after fighting longer time on this subject
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Ick.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
It's clunky, I tried to use async but gave up, just too much trouble too implement.
And await ... surprise, does not wait !
I prefer working with Tasks and Task.Factory.
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: I prefer working with Tasks and Task.Factory.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you really asking a programming question here, under the guise of a public opinion question? hmm.
Edit: just checking to make sure this is being done correctly. Why are you returning a new result object?
c# - How does Task<int> become a int? - Stack Overflow[^]
modified 10-May-18 12:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
public IEnumerable<int> TheAnswer()
{
yield return 42;
}
Signature says IEnumerable<int> , but the value after return is an int .
OK, it's not quite the same thing: you're using yield return instead of just return . But it's similar.
Would you have preferred another contextual keyword for async methods?
public async Task<Result> LoadData()
{
...
async return result;
return async result;
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Would you have preferred another contextual keyword for async methods?
public async Task<Result> LoadData()
{
...
async return result;
return async result;
}
Now that's horrifying.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: Now that's horrifying.
You're not wrong. I just wanted to see if Chris thought it would have been less "weird" to have a modifier on the return , like you do in an iterator method.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Get that var out of there.
|
|
|
|
|
Why? you don't need to. the "new" instantiation tells you what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Kids these days, they don't have time to define what's the actual variable they're using. "The compiler will figure it out".
|
|
|
|