|
I'm trying to port some old C++ code to C#.
I have a few classes that were defined in a ".h" file. Their constructors and member variables were defined in the corresponding .cpp file.
What is the best way to port this file to C#. More specifically:
1. I assume that the class, its constructor and methods are all defined together as follows:
class DSP
{
// constructor
// methods
}
Is this correct?
2. The original C++ listing in the .h file is as follows:
class DSP
{
public:
// public variables
protected:
//constructor
// destructor
// private variables
void SomeMethod()
};
These public variables need to be properties that can be assigned to. Therefore in the C# implementation, do I need to define these fields with "get" and "set" properties?
I know these are very elementary questions, but I haven't ported any C++ code over to C# before, and I appreciate your help!
|
|
|
|
|
C# classes do not have header files, pretty much anything in the header can be discarded. The declaration of functions in C# is the same as the definition, and everything can automatically see the namespaces in the project, without having to include anything.
Yes, the best way to set properties is with get/set methods, then you can make variables that can be got and not set, and vice versa, if needed.
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I have made a table using access , one of its coulumns is of the type
Hyperlink. I can't access it using Data grid on C#.
where I want to make it a link to a certain file or to read the file contentes of a certain row
|
|
|
|
|
Hello:
I recently changed my code around... being inexperienced and stupid, I had put code that replaced the connectionstring of an OleDbAdapter in the region that the designer obliterates when you make changes. But it worked.
Now I have moved the code to the form load event function, and the program cannot fill the dataset. I do not understand why at all. I have put in MessageBox.Show calls to show that the connectionstring is alright, so I am confused now as to what the problem is. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
Try putting the code block in the constructor just after InitializeComponent()
public class Form1 : System.Windows.Forms.Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void InitializeComponent()
{
}
}
Hope this works.
|
|
|
|
|
hi ,
Please try to execute your code block in try....catch block. And send the error message.
**************************
S r e e j i t h N a i r
**************************
|
|
|
|
|
1.Your suggestion is correct though What I wanted to stress that one should not write any code other than that of GUI design in the InitializeComponent(). Other code [non GUI related] gets deleted.
2.Whether you put the code chunk in try catch block or not if there is any error it will pop up. If it is not handled it will get crashed.
3.Also he has said, he is not getting any error pop-up msg.
Lets see what is Chris's problem? He has not reverted back till now.....
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
My main app need to call a static method on several different classes, so each class (A and B) inherited a base class (BASE) that defined and implemented (empty) a static method so that the main app could do this
doSomething()<br />
{<br />
((BASE)child).TheStaticMethod(...)<br />
}
Other methods were also defined as abstract, and had to be implemented by A and B.
Now I wanted things a bit "cleaner" so I created an interface that classes A and B inherited from and thus had to implement, which works just fine for all other methods than the static one. You cant say
Interface IBase<br />
{<br />
static void ThePreviouslyStaticMethod();<br />
}
- as you get a "error CS0106: The modifier 'static' is not valid for this item" from the compiler.
Now what do I do ? Isn't it possible to force classes to implement a certain static method ?
Thanks in advance
/Jan
Do you know why it's important to make fast decisions? Because you give yourself more time to correct your mistakes, when you find out that you made the wrong one. Chris Meech on deciding whether to go to his daughters graduation or a Neil Young concert
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using DX9, which has lots of lovely C# support, but only C++ docs, it seems. The C++ docs talk about being able to read ID3 tags, I can't find that support in C#. Can anyone help ?
Thanks.
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are my hero 
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Have you succeeded in downloading this ? I've had it time out at about 180 MB 7 or 8 times.
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I've had it time out at about 180 MB 7 or 8 times.
You mean you dont use a download manager?  Yes, the link I posted came straight from my download log! Maybe they shifted location....
top secret xacc-ide 0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote:
You mean you dont use a download manager?
Good point - downloading one now
leppie wrote:
Maybe they shifted location....
No, it's there, it just keeps dropping out. I have enough disc space, and then some, the problem is that the net connection in our new office is flaky.
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an program with a listview, which is in report mode. I have several columns, and one of them shows a file path, so I want it to be right aligned, so I always see the end. I've set this property both in the code that sets up the columns, and later, but it makes NO difference. My columns are always left aligned. Does anyone have an example of doing this (presumably trivial) task ?
Christian
I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If the column that you want right aligned is the first column in the listview, it will be left-aligned. There is no way around this. Make the file path column the second column and set that to right aligned and it will all be okay.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a dataset that contains multiple columns of text that needs to be displayed in a control on a Windows form - much like a spreadsheet. The rows need to be selectable so I can retrieve data later on in the application (by being able to retrieve an index or column ID). I'd like the entire row to be selectable rather than just a specific column. I have looked at using a datagrid, but that seems to be overkill. I also looked at some multi-column listbox controls on Code Project but they go much farther than I need my control. Perhaps there is another control or custom control I should use?
|
|
|
|
|
Peter8675309 wrote:
Perhaps there is another control or custom control I should use?
The DataGrid and other controls are overkill? You could always write your own, defining only what you need. I would assume any other control out there is probably going to also be too much for your needs as they typically try to supply what the DataGrid doesn't out of the box.
- Nick Parker
My Blog | My Articles
|
|
|
|
|
Nick;
Turns out the datagrid WILL work fine. not sure what I was thinking (maybe I wasn't). The only thing I have to do now is programatically set the column widths for the data.
Thanks for the quick reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on Get & Set! I've got a class in which I have two public variables. The class itself changes their values, and any calling class can also change the values.
Is it "bad form" to just leave these variables public? Or should I turn these into class properties by doing:
private int _myvar;
public int myvar
{
get
{
return _myvar;
}
set
{
_myvar = value;
}
}
The class is so specialized that I don't need to do any checking during a "set" when I call the class methods. My instinct says that I'd get a microsecond or two of a performance boost by just leaving myvar as public, and eliminating the private/get/set/propery code. But I'm curious as if to this is bad form.
I could see if I had to prevent a "set" operation, or perform a check on the value first- but I don't have to do either of these.
Thanks!
-Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
The main argument against public fields is one of compatibility. If you change the public field to a public property, then that is a breaking change.
So, probably not a big deal for monolithic single EXE apps, but for class libraries it is a no-no.
In C#, I usually just put the whole property on a single line -- that way it does not clutter up the code so much.
There is one (experimental) .NET language takes care of this more elegantly, called Boo. It uses attributes to let you mark a private field as having a getter and/or setter, which is then auto-generated at compile time (by the Boo compiler).
my blog
|
|
|
|
|
Virtually all the .NET framework uses get/set properties, even for lightweight structs (Point, Size, Rectangle, for example).
The only times the framework exposes fields are static readonly fields; aside from that the standard seems to be to expose fields as properties.
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
Steven & Judah, thanks! I guess I'll change those fields into properties- I hate "breaking style". The class is sealed- it's basically for some help during a system data migration- but as trivial as it is, I don't want any poor coding habits popping up!
-Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Campbell wrote:
There is one (experimental) .NET language takes care of this more elegantly, called Boo. It uses attributes to let you mark a private field as having a getter and/or setter, which is then auto-generated at compile time (by the Boo compiler).
C++/CLI has something similar, called trivial properties. Basically, you say:
property int Something
and compiler creates a private variable and a property for you.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
