IIF to the rescue...

Sander Rossel

Because there is no other way to compare OrderNumber to 0 :laugh:

Private Function IsNew(ByVal OrderNumber As Long) As Boolean
Return IIf(OrderNumber = 0, True, False)
End Function

It's not horrible, but it's pretty representative for the code as a whole. A lot of redundancy, a lot of global variables, no null values (but still NullReferenceExceptions...), Forms with 1000+ lines of code, etc. VB is not the problem, it's the programmers that code it.

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

Bernhard Hiller

Where do you see the problem behind that code that justifies it to be posted in the Weird and Wonderful? Well, that IsNew function should better be a function of the Order class and not need a parameter (because OrderNumber could be expected to be a Property). But otherwise? Does VB.Net have the ternary operator like C# (return OrderNumber = 0 ? true : false;)? I don't know. Or did you want to tell us that it's better to do the comparison of OrderNumber to 0 whenever that IsNew function is used? Oh no! That would deserve to be posted here! IsNew clearly tells you the intention of the code, while If(OrderNumber=0) does not.

Sander Rossel

It is a function on the Order class, but it still takes a parameter (it just gets mOrderNumber given to it every time). VB does not have a ternary operator. I'm saying the function could look like this: Return OrderNumber = 0 There is no need for an IIF anywhere in the code. As I said, it's not truly horrible, but it's an 'interesting' way to return if OrderNumber = 0 :)

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

Bernhard Hiller

Ah, thanks. That explains it. It really deserves this place.

Sander Rossel

Don't worry, we all have our off-days :laugh:

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

Nagy Vilmos

Sander Rossel wrote:

VB does not have a ternary operator.

It does, it's the IIf function/method/whateva

Sander Rossel

Is that an operator or a function? ;) I wouldn't know the difference, but I believe there is one. Something like an operator is a function, but a function is not an operator.

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

Richard Deeming

Not quite. IIf is a function[^], and as such it evaluates both arguments before checking the condition. So while this works in C#:

someObject == null ? "Null" : someObject.ToString()

the equivalent using IIf will throw a NullReferenceException:

IIf(someObject Is Nothing, "Null", someObject.ToString()) ' Boom!

The real ternary operator for VB.NET is the If operator[^], which was added in .NET 3.5:

If(someObject Is Nothing, "Null", someObject.ToString()) ' No Boom.

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

Bernhard Hiller

I guess it was an unhandled ConfusedByVBException...

Sander Rossel

:laugh:

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

PaulLinton

I don't know VB and was just wondering ... if

Return OrderNumber = 0

does a comparison and returns the result then how would you set the value of OrderNumber to 0 and then return OrderNumber? In C#, the first is

return OrderNumber == 0;

and the second is

return OrderNumber = 0;

Sander Rossel

PaulLinton wrote:

I don't know VB

Obviously :) VB doesn't know the == operator. Instead = can be either assignment or comparison, dependent on context. In this case it's a comparison, but no assignment. So

Return OrderNumber = 0

Would be

return OrderNumber == 0;

in C#. Your second C# example isn't possible in VB (as far as I know, but I didn't know it was possible in C# either :) )

It's an OO world.

public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}

Jorgen Andersson

The second one would be:

Return (Ordernumber = 0)

<edit>Or like this:

Return 0 = Ordernumber

</edit>

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]