C# 4.0
-
Good ideas. Have you suggested them to MS?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Twice, yes. Both times the C# team argued about the complexity of introducing named optional params, and I said, I'm not asking for that. just some simple syntactic sugar ( the compiler can just generate the methods that pass the defaults through ). Like banging your head against a wall. Of course, now I am not an MVP, because I hate Vista, so I can't suggest anything anymore.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
I have always said that developers need to focus on mastering what has been provided in 2.0 before even thinking about adding more candy.
Would it really be hard to "master" tuples as a return paramter? I love that feature as part of LUA and Python especially over out parametes. Spec# sounds interesting which adds support for explicit programming by contract.
Todd Smith
It is more that .NET 2.0 provide the exact construct as required to perform the action without the need for a language update. I am not saying it is hard to master but I am constantly seeing instances of persons requesting features that are already supported.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego. -
I'd love to see a const keyword on parameters to methods, and optional parameters. Both of which seem simple enough.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
Christian Graus wrote:
optional parameters
Mixing optional parameters and overloads can lead to pretty bad mess.
-
So now that C# 4.0 is being talked about, I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language. Sorry if this is a repost, but I went through several pages, and didn't see anything, so... What I'd frankly love to see would be tuples. Rather than having to use multiple 'out' parameters, you'd just return multiple values:
public int,int MinMax(int[] numbers)
{
int min, max;
// Code to calculate min/maxreturn min, max;
}What do you think? What would be good for the next version?
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
-
Christian Graus wrote:
optional parameters
Mixing optional parameters and overloads can lead to pretty bad mess.
Yeah, the C# team explicitly stated they always try to make the language simple rather than powerful. Which is retarded IMO. Sure, you can make mistakes with powerful features, but that's not the point.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
-
Why do you need this feature since currently object, array and many other types can be returned or passed by reference.
TOMZ_KV
Sigh. As I've said above numerous times, it's not NEEDED, it'd just be nice. :) The ?? operator is not needed. But it's a great shortcut. The foreach construct isn't needed. But it's a great shortcut (you could do the same thing with a while loop, checking whether the MoveNext method of the enumerator returns false). Same with the idea of tuples. I'd rather be able to return 3 or 4 values than have to deal with the messiness of out parameters, or having to define multiple structs to handle each return combination that I might need.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
-
I'd love to see a const keyword on parameters to methods, and optional parameters. Both of which seem simple enough.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd love to see a const keyword on parameters to methods
Seems to me they could use the readonly keyword for this instead of introducing a new keyword. EDIT: :doh: const is already a keyword in C#. Shows you how rusty my C# is already... I'm not really up on compiler writing, so I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement in C#. The compiler would have to make sure that read-only properties/methods are called on readonly/const parameters. That may be nontrivial.
-
Why const? What will it even do besides limit the programmer in the usage of said parameters?
harold aptroot wrote:
Why const? What will it even do besides limit the programmer in the usage of said parameters?
Well, that's kind of the point. You want to limit the usage of const parameters to minimize side-effects.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd love to see a const keyword on parameters to methods
Seems to me they could use the readonly keyword for this instead of introducing a new keyword. EDIT: :doh: const is already a keyword in C#. Shows you how rusty my C# is already... I'm not really up on compiler writing, so I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement in C#. The compiler would have to make sure that read-only properties/methods are called on readonly/const parameters. That may be nontrivial.
C++ does it. I don't see why C# shouldn't, either. I accept it's less trivial than optional params.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
-
So now that C# 4.0 is being talked about, I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language. Sorry if this is a repost, but I went through several pages, and didn't see anything, so... What I'd frankly love to see would be tuples. Rather than having to use multiple 'out' parameters, you'd just return multiple values:
public int,int MinMax(int[] numbers)
{
int min, max;
// Code to calculate min/maxreturn min, max;
}What do you think? What would be good for the next version?
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
I'd like to see a default class property. I wrote a thin wrapper for a web service the other day, and instead of being able to access the nested object transparently, I had to add another layer of indirection. eg:
private WebServiceWrapper service = new WebServiceWrapper(); // To access the aggregate web service, we have to do this: service.AggregateService.Method(); // instead of the much more elegant: service.Method();Sunrise Wallpaper Project | The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader
-
So now that C# 4.0 is being talked about, I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language. Sorry if this is a repost, but I went through several pages, and didn't see anything, so... What I'd frankly love to see would be tuples. Rather than having to use multiple 'out' parameters, you'd just return multiple values:
public int,int MinMax(int[] numbers)
{
int min, max;
// Code to calculate min/maxreturn min, max;
}What do you think? What would be good for the next version?
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
How about a function's return type being part of it's signature and not just the arugment list; so int functA(string abc); string functA(string abc); does not cause a compile error when they are in same class.
MrPlankton
-
So now that C# 4.0 is being talked about, I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language. Sorry if this is a repost, but I went through several pages, and didn't see anything, so... What I'd frankly love to see would be tuples. Rather than having to use multiple 'out' parameters, you'd just return multiple values:
public int,int MinMax(int[] numbers)
{
int min, max;
// Code to calculate min/maxreturn min, max;
}What do you think? What would be good for the next version?
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
I was wishing for such a thing just yesterday. Ended up using an array, but the calling code is much uglier for having to unpack it. Actually, what would be great would be something like the destructuring assignment syntax recently added to JavaScript. Imagine being able to do this:
double w;
double h;
double d;
...[w,h,d] = CalculateDimensions(...);
:-D
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
How about a function's return type being part of it's signature and not just the arugment list; so int functA(string abc); string functA(string abc); does not cause a compile error when they are in same class.
MrPlankton
Yeah, I've often thought it was kind of dumb that languages didn't do this in the first place. I think the reason though is in how the parameters are wound on to the stack. I agree, though, that if they can make it work, it'd be worth it.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
-
How about a function's return type being part of it's signature and not just the arugment list; so int functA(string abc); string functA(string abc); does not cause a compile error when they are in same class.
MrPlankton
You would have to make sure that you correctly assigned the return value in order for this to work, right? eg:
int x = funcA( "blah" )tells the compiler to use the version that returns int, but what about these calls?funcA( "blah"); object o = funcA( "test" );They're ambiguous calls and the compiler can't help you any more. :)Sunrise Wallpaper Project | The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader
-
I was wishing for such a thing just yesterday. Ended up using an array, but the calling code is much uglier for having to unpack it. Actually, what would be great would be something like the destructuring assignment syntax recently added to JavaScript. Imagine being able to do this:
double w;
double h;
double d;
...[w,h,d] = CalculateDimensions(...);
:-D
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Yup. Exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. The brackets would probably be easier syntax anyway than what I recommended for the parser to figure out.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
-
In a language where most things are passed by reference, there's even more value in an interface making an explicit promise to not alter an object that it is given to work with. How does it limit the programmer ? If you want to alter an object, don't mark it const.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Why const? What will it even do besides limit the programmer in the usage of said parameters?
Well, that's kind of the point. You want to limit the usage of const parameters to minimize side-effects.
-
You would have to make sure that you correctly assigned the return value in order for this to work, right? eg:
int x = funcA( "blah" )tells the compiler to use the version that returns int, but what about these calls?funcA( "blah"); object o = funcA( "test" );They're ambiguous calls and the compiler can't help you any more. :)Sunrise Wallpaper Project | The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader
It's been awhile since I did any c++, but I believe you would get a compile warning with Borlands old c++ compiler and then it would take it's best guess. Casting the function call would make the compiler happy. They could do the same with next version c#.
MrPlankton
-
So now that C# 4.0 is being talked about, I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language. Sorry if this is a repost, but I went through several pages, and didn't see anything, so... What I'd frankly love to see would be tuples. Rather than having to use multiple 'out' parameters, you'd just return multiple values:
public int,int MinMax(int[] numbers)
{
int min, max;
// Code to calculate min/maxreturn min, max;
}What do you think? What would be good for the next version?
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote:
I was wondering what people thought would be good additions to the language
Oh, I forgot to address that. 1) Pseudo-virtual constructors: I may have a class with a constructor that takes a parameter. If I derive from that class, I have to implement a constructor to call the base constructor:
public class X
{
public X ( string S ) { ... }...}
public class Y : X
{
public Y ( string S ) : base ( S ) {}
}In this example, the Y constructor does nothing but call the base constructor, I'd rather not have to write it, it's busy-work that the compiler could do. Currently, if Y doesn't have a constructor it's an error. But the compiler already knows how to add a "default constructor", why not have it add the appropriate constructor(s) in cases like these as well? This would be most handy when defining a hierarchy of Exceptions. 2) Allow
enumas a generic type constraint:public class X where T : **enum** { ... }There are operations one can perform on enum values which are rather difficult without allowing enum as a constraint. -
Yeah, I've often thought it was kind of dumb that languages didn't do this in the first place. I think the reason though is in how the parameters are wound on to the stack. I agree, though, that if they can make it work, it'd be worth it.
Kyosa Jamie Nordmeyer - Taekwondo Yi (2nd) Dan Portland, Oregon, USA
You use to be able to do this in c++.
MrPlankton
