C# 4.0

[Pawel Krakowiak]

MrPlankton wrote:

well then how about a void functA("a");

What if there's not such method?

[Pawel Krakowiak]

Sunny Ahuwanya wrote:

I think they already degraded the language in C# 3 by adding extension methods

I think of them as of an improvement and use them. :)

[Rei Miyasaka]

Static verification would be awesome. Contracts[^] would be nice too if they could get some of those features in without making too much of a mess. For instance, Spec# will throw a compile-time error (and squiggly underline in Visual Studio) with this code:

public float Divide(float x, float y)
{
return x / y;
}

But this would be valid:

public float Divide(float x, float y)
requires y != 0
{
return x / y;
}

As would this:

public float Divide(float x, float y)
{
if(y == 0)
throw new ArgumentException("y");
return x / y;
}

[Ian Good]

const parameters would be very nice, it's a very clear way to show me that my object has not been changed after the function to which I passed it returns

[MukeshKAgarwal]

do anybody suggest me any gud article on 4.0 And what is the raod map of 4.0

[rastaVnuce]

Mladen Jankovic wrote:

And const is certainly a better solution than running around the office saying 'promise me that you will not try to change data returned by SomeLongAndCrypticFunctionName'

Yes, but running is good for you! :laugh:

To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.

[Vikram A Punathambekar]

I am astounded they don't support const parameters yet. Naturally, if they support const parameters, they will almost certainly have to support const methods. I think const parameters are one of the best things about C++ that got dropped out in C#.

Cheers, Vıkram.

---

"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.

[Vikram A Punathambekar]

S. Senthil Kumar wrote:

The methods themselves would have to be declared const, just like in C++.

Yeah, I wrote that myself, without reading your post. :doh:

S. Senthil Kumar wrote:

if a method declared const in v1 of the library became non const in v2, the "constness" guarantee will get broken (unless there is a runtime check).

I'm not sure I understand, could you please explain?

Cheers, Vıkram.

---

"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.

[Bastian M K Ohta]

I'd like to have local static varibles.

[ASMiller]

How about the ability to partially set array values. For example, for an int array of length 10 with default values of 0..9 respectively, the following would be valid:

myArray[3..5] = (-3, -4, -5);

The contents would then be: 0, 1, 2, -3, -4, -5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Another idea is a composite Label (say Strings and Images). The display of CompositeLabel.Text would display a String followed by an Image then we could have things (using my mythical System.Text.SmileyFace namespace) like . . .

myCompositeLabel.Text = "Hello, World " + System.Text.SmileyFace.BigGrin.ToImage();

The display would then be: Hello, World :-D Anthony

[alan cooper]

I bet 99% of you disagree with this one! I would like to see multiple inheritance and full operator overloading available in C#.

[Lost User]

I believe this is a programming question! :mad:

[higelino]

The good answer to 'constness' is spec#. The 'constness', the 'nonnullness', the 'checkedexceptionness' , the 'immutabilityness' etc ... are all describable with contracts. I think Spec# will be a real revolution in the .NET world. In fact the .NET infrastructure should evolve to include contract metadata so that every .NET language will manage contracts in a similar way. Try it here http://research.microsoft.com/SpecSharp/[^] ... and cry because I am sure that c#4 won't include spec# :-(

[ThunderDK]

I think it would be easier to just make it an array of the two ints instead. How would you receive the values from the method call?

[RugbyLeague]

an IMaths interface so writing maths libraries with generics is simpler

[Donkey Master]

Christian Graus wrote:

I can use const to tell a user when they can trust my code not to change their stuff.

erm, I don't see how that would work. I thought that const was more of a promise to yourself, or to implementors, not to users. Nothing prevents you from calling methods and setting fields, right? Ok, let me start it again. What is the const keyword supposed to do in parameters that has an effect outside the method?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

[Mel Padden]

That's the best and most practical suggestion for c# I've seen. has anybody raised it to MS?

Smokie, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules. www.geticeberg.com

[Russell Jones]

I do sort of like the idea but isn't a function by definition a thing that only returns a single value? Maybe we need anonymous returns instead so that you define a struct on the fly, thus returning a single entity that contains the multiple values. public {Max int, Min int} MinMax(int[] numbers) { int min, max; // Code to calculate min/max return {min, max}; } called with var v= MinMax(myArray); system.out.println(v.Min); system.out.println(v.Max); otherwise you'd end up having to create something wierd like this to get the values back int min, max = MinMax(myArray); Russell

[Oshtri Deka]

Hallelujah!

[Don Miguel]

Christian Graus wrote:

they always try to make the language simple

Indeed, C# is a simple language, and was build exactly with this in mind. To be simple. Why now we just ask for features which belongs to higher level languages? Let it simple. For complex things, use C/C++. For critical and low level, use assembler. For functional use F#. And so on. Is it like we ask for VB to have some super features, which were never supposed to be in a programming language addressing the "features" VB address...