|
Arrays are ok, but better would be Generic List[^]
Read up and use that 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever came across some thing like this[^]?
*jaans
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, beat ya to it 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Try using a generic list. You can do all sorts of things with it.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
HAHA Everyone jumped on this one 
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe yea, I like to promote the use of generic List wherever possible
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone suggested using a list yet?
My current favourite word is: Bacon!
-SK Genius
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest a book instead.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Is one of those books a Dictionary?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is one of those books a Dictionary?
I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Does this result in you performing a core dump?
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don't do core dumps either, analyzing them also puts me in an eternal loop.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Yes, of course, books should stay into the stacks.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
You can make a LIFO stack in the corner. Or buy some string and make a linked list. Or buy two buckets and make a hash table.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Buying buckets to store books. That's a novel concept, I'll have to ponder that a while.
However my first book isn't waterproof... So I'll go for the string, bind the books
together, and get rid of the problem. I can store one bucket in the corner (that will come
handy some day), and no need for a stack, so now I have a spare bucket.
Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion? an array of buckets? Anyone with a better idea?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Another idea for storing books would be a table. One book on the table, and one to keep it level.
Or perhaps a tree of some sort. If you already have the string.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion?
Buckets are usually very stackable, at least when empty.
Otherwise you can just put them in boxes and throw them in a heap.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Guffa wrote: Buckets are usually very stackable, at least when empty. Otherwise you can just put them in boxes and throw them in a heap.
Aha, buckets can be boxed, hence they are value types, hence I don't need my string
to link them together, I'll use it to bind the books instead as I already was going to;
so all I need now is two boxes. In the end, in order to store two books, I need two boxes.
Right. OO is simple after all, it just takes a while to get used to it.
Now that we discovered all this, do we still need the second book? and the buckets?
and the string? the boxes? And if we only need a single book, what is all this OO about??
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Books are usually already bound when you buy them. If you use thread instead of string, and make a doubly linked list, it would be multi threaded. I hope that you don't have a single threaded apartment.
If you have only one book, you could get some glue and make it static.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Guffa wrote: Books are usually already bound when you buy them
Yes, of course, but I was given the advice of storing the books in buckets, and
they fell apart; no one told me to buy empty buckets. And I wish I'd gotten the glue
advice first. Yes mine is a typical singles apartment, how did you guess?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll change up the recommendations. If you only need Add() and Remove() functionality, I would say to use the Generic Collection class from the System.Collections.ObjectModel namespace instead and avoid the extra bloat of the Generic List.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi My Friends
I develop software with C#.Net 2005, Yesterday installed Borland Delphi 2006 on my PC for debugging and working another program, Delphi work correct and no problem but when switch to C#, see Runtime Error about float.Parse method.
For example if you write float f = float.Parse("2.3");
See below Runtime Error :
Input string was not in a correct format.
This method work in the previous and at now work on the another PC, I think System library conflict with delphi.
If you have solution for me, I will grateful from you.
Best Regards,
Reza Shojaee
|
|
|
|
|
Could this be a localization issue? Try specifying the IFormatProvider.
float f = float.Parse("2.3", NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo);
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your guidance,
I test your solution and get appropriate result.
But do you know why in the previous no need to determine NumberFormatInfo ?
Best Regards,
Reza Shojaee
|
|
|
|
|
I presume in your computer's language settings it's expecting a comma for a decimal seperator (2,00) rather than a period (2.00)
Invariant Culture just tells the language to always use "."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
