This vs. that
-
this.Redundant
Errrm, this.
Alberto Brandolini:
The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
-
this.Redundant
Only assignment, call, increment, decrement, and new object expressions can be used as a statement. :)
Your time will come, if you let it be right.
-
I have a question about your preferred programming style. Whenever I write code in C# I make extensive use of the 'this' keyword and I use class names when referencing statics. So:
this.SomeProperty = someValue;
this.SomeMethod();
ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod();Instead of:
SomeProperty = someValue;
SomeMethod();
SomeStaticMethod();My reasoning behind this is that I can tell something is an instance method or a static method. And to be completely honest it's also something I started doing in VB because VB has Modules and Modules don't make you specify the Module's name. So
Me.SomeMethod()can be an instance method, a Shared/static method on the current class or a method in some Module! Now there's a new guy at work and he really hates this style of programming because he thinks it's redundant. I'm not asking for right or wrong (unless I'm the one who's right ;p), but I want to know personal preferences.public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}thisis good and I use it normally. The fact that it seems to annoy some pooples just encourages me to use it more. :-D -
I have a question about your preferred programming style. Whenever I write code in C# I make extensive use of the 'this' keyword and I use class names when referencing statics. So:
this.SomeProperty = someValue;
this.SomeMethod();
ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod();Instead of:
SomeProperty = someValue;
SomeMethod();
SomeStaticMethod();My reasoning behind this is that I can tell something is an instance method or a static method. And to be completely honest it's also something I started doing in VB because VB has Modules and Modules don't make you specify the Module's name. So
Me.SomeMethod()can be an instance method, a Shared/static method on the current class or a method in some Module! Now there's a new guy at work and he really hates this style of programming because he thinks it's redundant. I'm not asking for right or wrong (unless I'm the one who's right ;p), but I want to know personal preferences.public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
My preference is to never use this unless there is a reason to do so (like conflicting names). My methods are small enough that it is rarely a problem to see what is local and what is a property and anyway, properties begin with a Capital and locals don't. For static methods I use the classname. option, as there is no other obvious differentiator. That said, I don't work with many classes with static methods, so not something I have formed a habit out of. When I see this.SomeProperty = this.SomeMethod(this.SomeOtherProperty) I cringe, and think "this? What else?)
PooperPig - Coming Soon
_Maxxx_ wrote:
(like conflicting names)
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
-
thisis good and I use it normally. The fact that it seems to annoy some pooples just encourages me to use it more. :-Dsuch a trouble maker and non-conformist. :-D
-
"this." triggers any auto-completion or Intellisense in the world. Yes I'm lazy - I wouldn't train machines to do men's work if I wasn't ;)
-
I have a question about your preferred programming style. Whenever I write code in C# I make extensive use of the 'this' keyword and I use class names when referencing statics. So:
this.SomeProperty = someValue;
this.SomeMethod();
ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod();Instead of:
SomeProperty = someValue;
SomeMethod();
SomeStaticMethod();My reasoning behind this is that I can tell something is an instance method or a static method. And to be completely honest it's also something I started doing in VB because VB has Modules and Modules don't make you specify the Module's name. So
Me.SomeMethod()can be an instance method, a Shared/static method on the current class or a method in some Module! Now there's a new guy at work and he really hates this style of programming because he thinks it's redundant. I'm not asking for right or wrong (unless I'm the one who's right ;p), but I want to know personal preferences.public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}It has become a habit for me to use 'this,' to type in access modifiers even when not required, and to never create duplicate names, but, over the last two years, I have transitioned to using 'var freely which I know causes some people to break out in a poison sweat. I don't think these are particularly "bad" habits, but they are not any saving-grace of poor-quality design, or coding, either. At best, a syntactic sugar that may contribute to maintainability and future re-use ? But, I work alone, not in a team-setting. If (gods forbid) I was managing a commercial software dev team, oh yeah, I'd plump for standards.
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
-
It has become a habit for me to use 'this,' to type in access modifiers even when not required, and to never create duplicate names, but, over the last two years, I have transitioned to using 'var freely which I know causes some people to break out in a poison sweat. I don't think these are particularly "bad" habits, but they are not any saving-grace of poor-quality design, or coding, either. At best, a syntactic sugar that may contribute to maintainability and future re-use ? But, I work alone, not in a team-setting. If (gods forbid) I was managing a commercial software dev team, oh yeah, I'd plump for standards.
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
-
It has become a habit for me to use 'this,' to type in access modifiers even when not required, and to never create duplicate names, but, over the last two years, I have transitioned to using 'var freely which I know causes some people to break out in a poison sweat. I don't think these are particularly "bad" habits, but they are not any saving-grace of poor-quality design, or coding, either. At best, a syntactic sugar that may contribute to maintainability and future re-use ? But, I work alone, not in a team-setting. If (gods forbid) I was managing a commercial software dev team, oh yeah, I'd plump for standards.
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
BillWoodruff wrote:
At best, a syntactic sugar
Almost agreed. The
varkeyword can actually be quite dangerous as I have witnessed a few times myself. I work with Entity Framework a lot, which usesIQueryableto create queries that run on the database and return a result asIEnumerablethat can be used in your application. Interface-wise there is little difference betweenIQueryableandIEnumerable, but the function of the two differs greatly! A few times I changed myIQueryabletoIEnumerableand nothing broke, because theIQueryablewas declared usingvar. The type of my variable just 'silently' changed toIEnumerableand all of a sudden my app wouldn't perform very well. Thing is, in order to create anIEnumerablethe query was executed on the database. This was supposed to happen a few lines later, but because I put aToList()function somewhere in between this was done to early. All my filter functions were done on the in-memory collection instead of the database. Of course you'd also have this problem if you declared yourIQueryableasIEnumerable(anIQueryableIS anIEnumerable), but at least you'd explicitly choose to define it as such. I haven't seen this problem with other .NET interfaces, probably because none of them are so common and so costly asIQueryable, but I could imagine it happening when working withStreamsor some such base class which has a few subclasses that do different things.public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
If you just type one or two letters and then press Ctrl + Space, you would also get Intellisense and have to type even less. ;)
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
-
By that same reasoning, stop using any "using" and reference only via fully qualified "System.Windows.Forms.ListCtrl.Item item" :rolleyes: who needs any shortening of a line, just buy BLACK FRIDAY 50" MONITOR THATS IT?
Yep, I know. But I prefer not to include any Namespaces, only class names (the class name should be clear enough anyway). I understand that in the new version of C# you can create a using for a class so you can use its static members without specifying the class. It's already my least favourite feature!
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
I have a question about your preferred programming style. Whenever I write code in C# I make extensive use of the 'this' keyword and I use class names when referencing statics. So:
this.SomeProperty = someValue;
this.SomeMethod();
ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod();Instead of:
SomeProperty = someValue;
SomeMethod();
SomeStaticMethod();My reasoning behind this is that I can tell something is an instance method or a static method. And to be completely honest it's also something I started doing in VB because VB has Modules and Modules don't make you specify the Module's name. So
Me.SomeMethod()can be an instance method, a Shared/static method on the current class or a method in some Module! Now there's a new guy at work and he really hates this style of programming because he thinks it's redundant. I'm not asking for right or wrong (unless I'm the one who's right ;p), but I want to know personal preferences.public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
Got a link?
I did some searching but could not find that any more. Looks like they don't have a single document any more. This was from several years back. Once you installed the StyleCop plugin (was not part of VS then), it would issue warnings when you accessed a member without prefixing
this.Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Got a link?
Managed to dig out the old StyleCop page : http://stylecop.soyuz5.com/SA1101.html[^] Could not locate the original full document, sorry.
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I did some searching but could not find that any more. Looks like they don't have a single document any more. This was from several years back. Once you installed the StyleCop plugin (was not part of VS then), it would issue warnings when you accessed a member without prefixing
this.Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nish Sivakumar wrote:
StyleCop
X|
-
Nish Sivakumar wrote:
StyleCop
X|
