Re: C# 3.0 partial methods and automatic properties

Thanks the pointer!

Looks almost as good as The commentator: http://www.cenqua.com/commentator/

Sébastien

On 11/28/06, Davy J <[email protected]> wrote:
> For the comments try ghostdoc, takes the pain out of commenting procedures.
>
> Dave,
>
> On 11/23/06, Sebastien Lorion <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - Very rarely is there a need to override the behavior of the "event"
> > keyword (mostly when the class has many events, needs weak referencing on
> > its delegates and/or locking issues).
> >
> > - We declare variables *all* the time and with generics, the syntax of doing
> > so becomes quite cumbersome with never ending lines. Until C# 3.0, you can
> > use a trick, which is to use an import statement:
> >
> > using FooDictionary = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string,
> > System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, MyNamespace.Foo>>;
> > // or using StringFooDictionary = ...
> >
> >
> > Now for properties, none of the above applies. Except for the most simple
> > getter/setter, you need to put more logic in your properties. YMMV, but for
> > me, this happens quite a lot, if for no other reason than to raise a
> > PropertyChanged event. So the usefulness of the new syntax seems marginal,
> > at least in regards to the features you mention.
> >
> > Really, I think there are areas that need much more attention at this
> > moment.
> >
> > Like the current need to duplicate XML comments everywhere. How great would
> > it be if the IDE by default would take the comment on the base/interface
> > method and we only need to override as needed? We can put documentation in
> > separate files for that, but A) that does not solve the problem when the doc
> > is from an external library, B) I like to see my comments inline period.
> >
> > And what about exceptions? Aren't you tired of writing
> >
> > /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">
> > ///   <paramref name="bar"/> is a null reference.
> > /// </exception>
> > void Foo(object bar)
> > {
> >   if (bar == null)
> >     throw new ArgumentNullException("bar")
> > }
> >
> > I know I most certainly do! At least, if Intellisense would filter out types
> > after we write "throw new " to show only exception types (ending with
> > "Exception") like it does for attributes. A solution would be to integrate
> > now the "easy" parts of Spec# into C#, such as the "!" type operator:
> >
> > void Foo(object! bar)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > I have many many peeves like this that are not complicated to do (I think)
> > and would diminish a lot the bookkeeping programming.
> >
> > Sébastien
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion relating to the specifics of the C# and Managed C++
> > > languages [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith
> > > Hill
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 3:01 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [DOTNET-CX] C# 3.0 partial methods and automatic
> > > properties
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jon Skeet [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:23 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: C# 3.0 partial methods and automatic properties
> > > >
> > > > Creating a code snippet or a macro or whatever has a problem in terms
> > > of
> > > > readability though. Let's take another example of syntactic sugar:
> > > > "using". I'm sure that Eclipse can add a try/finally block round my
> > > Java
> > > > code easily, but I'm *much* happier reading C# code with the "using"
> > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, it's easier to read:
> > > >
> > > > public property string x; // Or whatever the syntax is
> > > >
> > > > than the "longhand" version, even if that longhand version *has* been
> > > > generated for you.
> > > >
> > > > Typing speed is rarely an issue for me, but quickly reading and
> > > > understanding code often is.
> > >
> > > I agree.  The VS IDE doesn't help when I'm reading code nor does it
> > > help when I write code outside of the IDE (yes I sometimes use notepad).
> > > I think the automatic property feature complements the "event" keyword
> > > which essentially does the same thing - create a private field
> > > (delegate) and generates the Add/Remove methods for you.  In both cases,
> > > if you need more functionality, then you don't use the feature i.e.
> > > write your own get/set or add/remove methods.
> > >
> > > The other issue I think that C# needs to stay on top of is remaining
> > > competitive with various dynamic languages.  There is a *lot* less line
> > > noise in languages like Ruby and Python.  Check out this MSDN article
> > > on IronPython:
> > >
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com//msdnmag/issues/06/10/clrinsideout/default.as
> > > px
> > >
> > > Dynamic languages like Python are popular for a reason - their syntax
> > > doesn't get in the way as much, requiring a lot less typing (keyboard
> > > typing).  By the way I don't agree with the statement in the article
> > > that the line noise in C# is necessary.  There are places where it
> > > isn't.  Take for instance the new type inferencing/var feature in C#
> > > 3.0.  I think this can help reduce line noise a fair amount e.g.:
> > >
> > > Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string, Foo>> bar = new
> > > Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string, Foo>>;
> > >
> > > versus
> > >
> > > var bar = new Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string, Foo>>;
> > >
> > > The automatic property syntax is just another step in the direction of
> > > eliminating unnecessary line noise.  What I like about these features
> > > is that you get some of simplified syntax found in dynamic languages
> > > without giving up static type checking and the features that go along
> > > with it like Intellisense.
> > >
> > > BTW, it's interesting that the C++ team thought the simplified property
> > > syntax idea worthy enough to add to the managed extensions for C++.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Keith
> > >
> > > ===================================
> > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor.  http://www.develop.com
> > >
> > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > http://discuss.develop.com
> >
> > ===================================
> > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r)  http://www.develop.com
> >
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Dave Jones
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
>
> b1xml2 : "The one thing that is differentiates VB.NET from C# is the
> horrible ability to do this turn Option explicit and strict off, after
> which VB.NET can resemble mangled spaghetti. "
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r)  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
>

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com