Welcome to the Lounge

var outerStream = new AStream();
using (var innerStream = new AnotherStream(outerStream)) {...}

{
    var outerStream = new MyStream();  // line 59
    using (var innerStream = new MyStream(outerStream)) {
        bool i = innerStream.CanRead;
        Console.WriteLine("Read: " + i);
    }
}
{
    using (var outerStream = new MyStream())
    {
        using (var innerStream = new MyStream(outerStream))
        {
            bool i = innerStream.CanRead;
            Console.WriteLine("Read: " + i);
        }
    }   // Line 73
}

byte[] data = new byte[1000];
MemoryStream memStream = new MemoryStream(data);
CryptoStream decStream = new CryptoStream(memStream, SHA1.Create(), CryptoStreamMode.Read);

using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(decStream)) {
    byte[] decryptedValue = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd());
    Console.WriteLine(decryptedValue);
}

SHA1 sha1 = SHA1.Create();
byte[] data = new byte[1000];
using (MemoryStream memStream = new MemoryStream(data)) {
    CryptoStream decStream = new CryptoStream(memStream, sha1, CryptoStreamMode.Read);

    StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(decStream);
    byte[] decryptedValue = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(reader.ReadToEnd());
    Console.WriteLine(decryptedValue);
}

pherschel wrote:

const DateTime today = DateTime.Now;

pherschel wrote:

For properties, why can't I hide the worker variable for the rest of the class?

public int PageNbr
{
int _worker = 9;

get { return _worker;}
set { _worker = value; }
}

pherschel wrote:

I can see readonly for parameters and such,

Quote:

Why can't I say

C#

const DateTime today = DateTime.Now;

OriginalGriff wrote:

What would happen if two different classes (or worse assemblies) both declared the same value? Would they be the same? Should they be? How would the system decide for you?

OriginalGriff wrote:

That's the point of const vs readonly - the former is a compile time constant value, the later is a runtime constant value.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:

The fact the compiler writers did it for string means they could have done it for any object.

const string _myString = String.Empty; //Compile-time error.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:

readonly is used for objects (except for string )

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:

could

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson

Fabio Franco wrote:

should it?

Fabio Franco wrote:

my opinion

Fabio Franco wrote:

another filosophical discussion

Member 10277807 wrote:

I'd like to see the let keyword added to C#

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson

To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson

pherschel wrote:

Is it me or do you get confused by this? Why can't I say

C#

const DateTime today = DateTime.Now;

const int x = 5;
int y = 2;
int z = y + x;
bool b = z <= x;

int y = 2;
int z = y + 5;
bool b = z <= 5;

const Person p = new Person();
p.FirstName = "John";
p.Age = 33;
Console.WriteLine (p); // what will the compiler replace "p" with?

pherschel wrote:

For properties, why can't I hide the worker variable for the rest of the class?

int PageNbr { get; set; }

pherschel wrote:

For destructors, why can't you give me option to destroy right away?

pherschel wrote:

If you open a file and a DB you have to nest usings before you even get started doing some work

using (This x = new This())
using (That y = new That())
{
   // code here
}

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

Because .net is better at memory management than you are and if you leave .net to do your memory management you'll get code that performs well, if you try and do your own memory management you get code that performs badly.

unsafe
{
 [DllImport(@"C:\Windows\System32\kernal32.dll")
 public static extern void * HeapAlloc(void * procHeap, UInt32 dword, UInt32 size);
}

pherschel wrote:

How about a free keyword on a variable or something to get me out of the business of resource management

dandy72 wrote:

I must be completely misunderstanding something.