What this 'null' check doing here...

Mohammed Hameed

Quote:

Is this inside a single method?

Yes, it is.

Quote:

I'd be more concerned here with the fact you'd never fill the employees list.

How??

Previous -> Read "CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Ritcher. Current -> Exploring WCF thru Apress' "Pro WCF" by Chris Peiris and Dennis Mulder. Next -> Need to read "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald E. Knuth.

Pete OHanlon

Never mind - I've been up for the last 16 hours. I was reading != as == here for some reason. :doh:

I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier

Mohammed Hameed

Ohh, that's okay...

Previous -> Read "CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Ritcher. Current -> Exploring WCF thru Apress' "Pro WCF" by Chris Peiris and Dennis Mulder. Next -> Need to read "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald E. Knuth.

jim lahey

I hope there's a unit test for that too.

Nicholas Marty

Hm. and why even initialize the variable if you're going to assign another value anyway?

Trajan McGill

And what is the " = new List()" doing there, either? Assign it one value, then if it isn't null, which it can't be, immediately assign it another value and discard the first object? Goofy.

Mohammed Hameed

Thanks for raising this point.

Previous -> Read "CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Ritcher. Current -> Exploring WCF thru Apress' "Pro WCF" by Chris Peiris and Dennis Mulder. Next -> Need to read "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald E. Knuth.

Mohammed Hameed

Thanks.

Previous -> Read "CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Ritcher. Current -> Exploring WCF thru Apress' "Pro WCF" by Chris Peiris and Dennis Mulder. Next -> Need to read "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald E. Knuth.

Brisingr Aerowing

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Thomas Daniels

Arrrggghhhh! My eyes! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::

vonb

Well, the null has really nothing to do there. Check if(employees.Count()==0) I would do like this

class TestClass()
{
List employees { get; set; }

 TestClass()
 {
      employees = GetEmployees();
 }

 private List GetEmployees()
 {
      return (from oRec in DataModel.Employees select oRec).ToList();
 }

}

The signature is in building process.. Please wait...

Mohammed Hameed

Thanks.

Previous -> Read "CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Ritcher. Current -> Exploring WCF thru Apress' "Pro WCF" by Chris Peiris and Dennis Mulder. Next -> Need to read "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald E. Knuth.

Richard Deeming

vonb wrote:

return (from oRec in DataModel.Employees select oRec).ToList();

Why do so many people insist on adding a pointless "from x in source select x" query to their code, when it has the same result as the much more concise "source"?

private List<Employee> GetEmployees()
{
return DataModel.Employees.ToList();
}

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

vonb

This was just a simple implementation of more complex queries which I actually use

publc List GetEmployees(int departmentId)
{
return (from oRec in DataModel.Employees where oRec.DepartmentID == departmentId).ToList();
}

The signature is in building process.. Please wait...

ZurdoDev

Do you two realize how much money you just cost CP with this waste of disk space? You better click on some ads to pay for your mistakes.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Richard Deeming

That's one of the reasons why I tend to prefer the method-call syntax for most LINQ queries - if you remove the .Where(filter) clause, your code still looks sensible.

return DataModel.Employees.Where(oRec => oRec.DepartmentID == departmentId).ToList();

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

Johnny YYZ

You owe me for the bandwidth cost of 2396 unnecessary :doh:s! Only the icon has 831 bytes, which amounts to a total of 1,991,076 wasted bytes. Gotta count now the extra html chars and send you the invoice! :doh: :sigh: :laugh:

David C Thompson

Probably code that has been edited and then not refactored. No real wtf here, ey?

bencr

It isn't really filling the list, it's replacing the reference with the result of that method call. I don't think that's what he meant though. A bit pedantic, I'm sorry.

englebart

More like the garbage collector...