|
I'm sorry to tell you, but this is an extremely bad idea. Basically, if this application ran in a culture on my machine, then it wouldn't work because we use the decimal as the separator, rather than commas. Commas are used here to denote thousands, millions, etc. For instance, we would write 3,442,167.00 which would be written out as garbage by your code.
What you should do, of course, is use a string formatter and actually apply the appropriate culture. That's it - nothing complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
well i dont recall reading anything about different cultures being an issue, for all i know its a simple homework assignment that is to show the logic behind the simple process in question.
Personally i would most likely use the string format method if i needed that kind of functionality, but as i know i can always count on others to provide the one liners, i like to give a bit of an idea to how the process could be done (that way people may learn to learn).
what if at some point the requirement was to put in different chars (for whatever reason) that are not supported by the formatting - yes you could format it then do a replace on the required chars, but then what if they what different chars for the different seperators i.e. thousands = ',' millions = '~' etc.
Well then they would just be back in the forums asking how its done, atleast giving an example of how this is done they may stand a chance to figure things out for themselves if need be, which surely is a step in the right direction for any programmer, no?
If only MySelf.Visible was more than just a getter...
A person can produce over 5 times there own body weight in excrement each year... please re-read your questions before posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony_P wrote: It's actually amazing to see that people still do stuff like that nowadays
where have you seen people using code like i suggested?
If only MySelf.Visible was more than just a getter...
A person can produce over 5 times there own body weight in excrement each year... please re-read your questions before posting
|
|
|
|
|
There's a one-liner for that too.
number+=number.Contains(',')?new String('0',number.indexOf(',')-number.Length+3):",00";
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
modified on Monday, February 16, 2009 4:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
very nice
If only MySelf.Visible was more than just a getter...
A person can produce over 5 times there own body weight in excrement each year... please re-read your questions before posting
|
|
|
|
|
for example :
double dbl = 344.5;
string dblInStr = dbl.ToString("F2"); // 344,50
double dbl = 333;
string dblInStr = dbl.ToString("F2"); // 333,00
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys,
I'd like to dynamically assign values to a known class instance based on the Property name. An example describes perfectly what I want to do: There is a class
public class AClass
{
public string _aValue;
public string AValue
{
get { return _aValue; }
set { _aValue = value; }
}
}
and I want to assing value to AClass.AValue without actually explicitly writing:
AClass aInstance = new AClass();
aInstance.AValue = "value";
and now comes the best part. I'd like to avoid reflection as much as possible, because performance matters. I could go and look for a property named "AValue" and do
typeof(AClass).GetProperty("AValue").SetValue(aInstance, "value", null);
however that's veery slow. It's got to be possible to do that some other way, Linq works like this and it's not slow.
any ideas?
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Could try creating a method in the class that takes param name and value, then do a switch and assign the value to the property required
If only MySelf.Visible was more than just a getter...
A person can produce over 5 times there own body weight in excrement each year... please re-read your questions before posting
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the idea, for now something like that is my workaround solution.
However I wanted to avoid writing special code into the AClass itself as well. I was thinking of something generic that could either AClass inherit from or a Wrapper class.
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
If it's only the one property you could use an implicit operator overload.
public class AClass
{
public AClass() : this(string.Empty) { }
private AClass(string aValue)
{
AValue = aValue;
}
public static implicit operator AClass(string aValue)
{
return new AClass(aValue);
}
public string AValue
{
get;
set;
}
}
AClass aInstance = "Test String";
Console.WriteLine(aInstance.AValue);
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea, but... It's not only one, there will be many properties like this within AClass. And it needs to be done outside of constructor.
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe extension methods could work. Create an extension method ToAClass for each type, and also pass the AClass instance.
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
static public void SetAClass(this string value, AClass instance)
{
instance.AString = value;
}
static public void SetAClass(this int value, AClass instance)
{
instance.AInt = value;
}
}
public class AClass
{
public string AString
{
get;
set;
}
public int AInt
{
get;
set;
}
}
AClass aInstance = new AClass();
"Test string".SetAClass(aInstance);
123.SetAClass(aInstance);
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyhow, whether is it extension methods or not, I'll have to create them dynamically using reflection and then just call those methods. I think I have a better idea now, thanks
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Zilo(svk) wrote: and I want to assing value to AClass.AValue without actually explicitly writing
It's difficult to answer without knowing why. Is it because you don't know the type at compile time?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I'm loading the class from dll as
Assembly.LoadFile(string file);
And I'd like to keep AClass as simple as possible, without any specific code to read or write values into it. It's just a data container.
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Well, LINQ knows the types of data objects at compile time, so there's no similarity there.
Without reflection, I guess your best bet is emitting the IL directly[^].
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't have to, I'm using those classes to work with linq as well and it's working fine. Thanks for the suggestion, that looks to be the only way to go.
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Zilo(svk) wrote: I'm using those classes to work with linq as well and it's working fine
Now I'm curious - can you paste a snippet of code that does that? I can't imagine LINQ working without you specifying the type somewhere (unless it's an anonymous type, of course).
|
|
|
|
|
I ment the classes are not present withing the same solution or assembly when compiling the code. When working with linq, I'm using strong types. This is a sample of one of the classes:
[Table(Name = "Books")]
public partial class Book : IDALEntity
{
private int _BookId;
private string _Title;
private int _Price;
private int _PublisherID;
public Book()
{ }
[Column(Storage = "_BookId", AutoSync = AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType = "Int NOT NULL", IsPrimaryKey = true)]
public int BookId
{
get
{
return this._BookId;
}
set
{
this._BookId = value;
}
}
...
}
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
Well, LINQ uses reflection to read the custom attributes you provide for each property, so that it can map them to database columns. I guess they do it just once and then generate dynamic code to do the actual translation from SQL results to object property assignments.
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, you are searching for an alternative to Reflection, right?
Calin
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of. Something that does the job but keeps the speed on same level as direct access.
zilo
|
|
|
|
|
I think you could try by using Dynamic Invocation.
Calin
|
|
|
|
|
Do you suggest to create a method using reflection on the fly:
void AssingAValue(AClass aInstance, object value)
{
aInstance.AValue = value;
}
and then just call this method?
zilo
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
