|
What do you think of reference types? They should be checked for null as well. Plus, there are many more reference types than value types.
|
|
|
|
|
True, and this is a deficiency in the framework in my opinion( see my other post on this thread for a partial explanation why, and I again stress this is my opinion, others differ and anyone reading this should, as ever, evaluate and form their own). Additionally, reference types passed into a function are mutable by the function, which can lead to unexpected consequences if that method is poorly implemented. Again this is one of the things I think languages like c++ handle better.
I'm certain the .net framework designers had good reasons to choose the reference types over value types when designing the language, just from my point of view it would have been nicer if they hadn't. Saying that, I dare say Microsoft put a few bright minds on the framework team 
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how if (val == -1) is much different than if (val == null)
null is not something to be feared, the prudent developer should just be in the practice of always considering null when dereferencing objects. You mention "rogue nulls hanging around" like they're some loitering punks harassing passerbys
That being said, I've only ever used nullables in data access layers (LLBLGen and LINQ actually generate code with nullables) and a specialized encoding library where it was perfectly valid to omit property values, including value types.
|
|
|
|
|
vtpdawg wrote: I don't see how if (val == -1) is much different than if (val == null)
Of course, if you take this as an example there is little difference. Consider the example of the number indicating a "status" of some kind to display on the UI. One implementation (albeit artificial and not necessarily the best) would be to reference with number with a dictionary:
Dictionary <int,string> lookup;
public void SetupLookup()
{
lookup = new Dictionary <int,string>();
lookup.Add(-1, "Unkown");
lookup.Add(0,"Naughty");
lookup.Add(1, "Nice");
}
public void string Lookup(int foo)
{
return lookup[foo];
}
public void string Lookup2(int& foo)
{
if(foo.HasValue)
return lookup[foo];
return "Unknown";
}
This example isn't perfect, but serves to illustrate the point. Now, we need to handle the null properly in the nullable type case . Once you decide to put the nullable type in, this sort of checking necessarily propagates throughout the code if the code is written to be robust. Additionally, there are fewer problems binding non-nullable types as you can (as in the above example) resolve -1 to something directly.
vtpdawg wrote: You mention "rogue nulls hanging around" like they're some loitering punks harassing passerbys
In a database context, this is exactly what they are like.
vtpdawg wrote:
null is not something to be feared, the prudent developer should just be in the practice of always considering null when dereferencing objects.
Agreed, but it is surely better to factor these out by design? One of the things I don't like about c# is the fact that objects are nullable by default (unlike c++) because we have to write a boilerplate code to allow for this.
The point I was trying to get across was just that nulls are best avoided and rarely needed, not that nulls should never be used. There are good counter arguments to everything I have said here, many of which I have sympathy with, it's opinion that the arguments in favour of avoiding nulls outweigh these (Others of course disagree!).
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess this is a case where programming is subjective. I actually prefer your Lookup2 implementation. I agree that one should not propagate special cases throughout their code, I'm a subscriber to the "say it once" approach; as long as this principle is followed, I'd not complain about either implementation.
“The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.”
(Anonymous)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that I didn't explain myself properly last night (my previous message was posted after midnight, so hopefully I get some slack !) in my code sample. Lookup(int foo) isn't needed, as lookup[foo] can be called inline, whereas Lookup2(int& foo) would have to be implemented at best. Also, internally Lookup(int foo) is one line of code whereas Lookup2(int& foo) has 3 AND a branching if statement (increasing cyclomatic complexity), both of these factors make my developer's Spider-senses tingle.
I agree this is subjective, as I have said in previous posts, there are good arguments for and against the nullable types we are discussing. (I was in the pro-camp for a fair while).
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
|
|
|
|
|
You did a lot better job explaining yourself this time
Another appropriate use of nullables can be seen in a recent post:
Using LINQ to Calculate Basic Statistics[^] Here, null is used as a return for standard deviation if the set to calculate is invalid (e.g. null, empty, or < 2 elements). I think I tend to like that better than an out parameter and a boolean return value, and is certainly preferable to returning a valid double in an error case. I guess one could argue that a negative value would be ok (since std dev is >= 0), or an exception should be raised...
“To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”
-Paul Ehrlich
|
|
|
|
|
vtpdawg wrote: Here, null is used as a return for standard deviation if the set to calculate is invalid (e.g. null, empty, or < 2 elements).
The Mode method, this could be a valid use of null as a set like {1,2,3,4} doesn't have a single modal value (unlike {1,1,2,3,4}. Null isn't "zero" or an empty string or somesuch, it really denotes the abscence of anything. Though equally could implement the Method so that it throws an exception if the set doesn't have a mode. The author of the article states that he returns null as this is what Excel does. You pays your money, you takes your choice on this I think.
vtpdawg wrote: Here, null is used as a return for standard deviation if the set to calculate is invalid (e.g. null, empty, or < 2 elements).
This is a different matter, the code definately should throw an error, as you can't perform SD calcs on such sets.
I know that Exceptions ring alarm bells as the perception is that they have bad performance. This is indeed true if a debug build is made, however when a live build is made the performance is close to events (which is, after all what they are underneath).
vtpdawg wrote: I think I tend to like that better than an out parameter and a boolean return value, and is certainly preferable to returning a valid double in an error case.
Agreed, that would be an ugly solution, and as I have [hopefully successfuly] explained an unecessary one as it can be handled via exception.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest issue is that when you aggregate a field in SQL you need to deal with the potential null values, you end up with IsNull(Field,0) all over the place just to deal with them. I often put in a default of 0.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly, this is the crux of the problem. The resultant cleaner code is a largeish benefit.
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
|
|
|
|
|
I am using VS 2008 C#. on right clicking the text of code behind file. shows options like
Go to definitions, view designer Outlining etc. But my side, Outlining option is not coming. Can u please tell the reason behind this ?
|
|
|
|
|
How this is related to C#  
|
|
|
|
|
abcurl wrote: shows options like
Go to definitions, view designer Outlining etc. But my side, Outlining option is not coming.
So which is it, Outlining is showing, or Outlining is not showing?
|
|
|
|
|
sir, it is not showing. can u please tell the reason ?
|
|
|
|
|
abcurl wrote: it is not showing. can u please tell the reason ?
Sorry, I cannot see why this would happen unless there is an option to disable it - which there is not, according to MSDN's help. I use VC# 2008 Express and it works fine there. I also tried Google and cannot find anything, so I would suggest you try one of the Microsoft forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
See the bellow lines
string sTmp = "jacob martin (234) 890-3456 UsPhone comes -4533 UsPhone";
string patern = @"\(\d{3}\)\s\d{3}-\d{4}";
string sRpl = "XXXX";
string sResult = "jacob martin (234) 890-XXXX UsPhone comes -4533 UsPhone";
I want to replace the 4 digit elements with XXXX which is @"\(\d{3}\)\s\d{3}-\d{4}" in use formate.
See there is another 4 Digit string is there (4533) but it is not in the us pattern so i have to leave that.
can any one help me how to write Regular Expression for that
My Question is Simple
1.STmp is the input string
2.The Reg has to find the us patern (@"\(\d{3}\)\s\d{3}-\d{4}")
3.Replace the last 4 Digts as XXXX
4.Leave the another 4 Digits which is not as valid usphone no -4533
5.The ourput Replace String should be as "jacob martin (234) 890-XXXX UsPhone comes -4533 UsPhone"
Please some one help me to do
thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
Use capturing groups to keep a reference to the part of the pattern you want to keep.
string pattern = @"(\(\d{3}\)\s\d{3}-)\d{4}";
string sRpl = @"$1XXXX";
You can have as many groups as you like, each one being references by $1, $2, etc. You can also name the groups, but that seems like overkill for this case. 
|
|
|
|
|
how do i resize a user control after adding it to other panel by event?
thanks.
modified 31-Dec-20 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 23-Nov-14 7:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
i have a form with a panel and a button, and i want that after clicking the button, a user control will brought to the panel in the origion form.
i tried to resize the user control manually like you said but the size doesn't change.
actually my user control is very small and the panel is big, i want that after pushing the button the user contol will be with the size of the split panel.
thanks.
modified 31-Dec-20 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 23-Nov-14 7:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
there is no dock property in the layout properties in the user control.
modified 31-Dec-20 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 23-Nov-14 7:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
even if i start over and adding a new user control i don't have a dock property for it.
modified 31-Dec-20 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that when the user clicks the button you want them to be able to see and use your control? If so, then make use of the visible property.
If you are changing the size with the size property and it is not working, then you have a coding mistake somewhere.
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
