C#

harold aptroot wrote:

0 is always legal when an enum is expected

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    AFormatCollection collFormats = new AFormatCollection();
    collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemD));
    collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemC));
    collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemA));
    collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemB));

    testFormat = collFormats[1];
    if (testFormat != null)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(testFormat.FormatType.ToString());
    }

    testFormat = collFormats[AFormatType.ItemC];
    if (testFormat != null)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(testFormat.FormatType.ToString());
    }
}

for (int i = 0; i < this.Count; i++)
{
    AFormat format = this[i];
    if (format.FormatType == type)
    {
        return format;
    }
}

return null;

collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemA));
collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemB));
collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemC));
collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.ItemD));

// Why should this be null in a strongly-typed language?
AFormat testFormat = collFormats[0];

// Because AFormatType(0) isn't in the collection
collFormats.Add(new AFormat(AFormatType.None));

testFormat = collFormats[0];

I are Troll

Paul Selormey wrote:

so the AFormat testFormat = collFormats[0]; is asking for the zero-indexed item.

for (int i = 0; i < this.Count; i++)
{
    AFormat format = base[i];
    if (format.FormatType == type)
    {
        return format;
    }
}

return null;

I are Troll

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

It's not going to take the 0 as a hint that it should use the inherited indexer, it'll simply convert your 0 into the enums value for (int)0 and use the indexer that's specified for the enum.

harold aptroot wrote:

No, see my earlier comment.

Paul Selormey wrote:

In which case it should also convert 1 to the enums value for (int)1, right? Try it.

I are Troll

nstk wrote:

The word 'Category' has a meaning for my class, but I am obliged to use a different word for the field, therefore I chose cat, but I find it poor in a semantic way.

Hiren Solanki wrote:

Let me give you the strong need of property in C#.
...
Property is introduced because of the changing requirement in software field.

kevinnicol wrote:

Some asp.net data grids will auto bind columns to all properties of an object.

kevinnicol wrote:

oops, thought I was in the C# forums, must have stumbled into the C++ forums by accident

kevinnicol wrote:

There was no sarcasm intended

nstk wrote:

As I know from OOP theory, the purpose of private Properties is to have the variables of an object protected from other classes, that could accidentaly change their value, thus provoking complications in a software. Am I correct till here?