Visual Studio - how to change "var" to corresponding class
-
Hi is there a way in Visual Studio (2012) to quickly change var into class eg i have: foreach (var item in document.documentPositions) {...} where document.documentPositions is list of object of class: DocumentPosition so is there a way to RMB click on var and choose some option to convert it to DocumentPosition ? I know that if i hover mouse over it i see class name but i want to change it quickly . Thanks for help.
-
Hi is there a way in Visual Studio (2012) to quickly change var into class eg i have: foreach (var item in document.documentPositions) {...} where document.documentPositions is list of object of class: DocumentPosition so is there a way to RMB click on var and choose some option to convert it to DocumentPosition ? I know that if i hover mouse over it i see class name but i want to change it quickly . Thanks for help.
Annoyingly, no, there isn't. There is an extension: Var Replacer C# extension[^] - but as var as I know that only works for VS2015.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Hi is there a way in Visual Studio (2012) to quickly change var into class eg i have: foreach (var item in document.documentPositions) {...} where document.documentPositions is list of object of class: DocumentPosition so is there a way to RMB click on var and choose some option to convert it to DocumentPosition ? I know that if i hover mouse over it i see class name but i want to change it quickly . Thanks for help.
If you use ReSharper, there is an option to switch to explicit Type declaration from 'var via either a left-margin click on an icon, or by keyboard alt-enter.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
If you use ReSharper, there is an option to switch to explicit Type declaration from 'var via either a left-margin click on an icon, or by keyboard alt-enter.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
Really should be part of VS by now... :sigh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
If you use ReSharper, there is an option to switch to explicit Type declaration from 'var via either a left-margin click on an icon, or by keyboard alt-enter.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
ReSharper is the demon responsible for most of this var nonsense!
// Can you guess what VS plug-in I use?
var customers = ctx.Customers.Where(c => c.HasOrders);
var customer = customers.FirstOrDefault();
if (customer != null)
{
var orderCount = customer.Orders.Count;
var value = customer.Orders.Sum(o => o.Total);
var postage = ctx.Postage.Where(p => P.Country == customer.Country);
var valuePlusPostage = value += postage;
var tax = financeHelper.TaxRate;
} -
ReSharper is the demon responsible for most of this var nonsense!
// Can you guess what VS plug-in I use?
var customers = ctx.Customers.Where(c => c.HasOrders);
var customer = customers.FirstOrDefault();
if (customer != null)
{
var orderCount = customer.Orders.Count;
var value = customer.Orders.Sum(o => o.Total);
var postage = ctx.Postage.Where(p => P.Country == customer.Country);
var valuePlusPostage = value += postage;
var tax = financeHelper.TaxRate;
}But if you don't like the option that changes a fully-specified type to 'var', why are you using it? I'm assuming here that Resharper doesn't do that by itself, or if it does that it is a 'feature' that can be turned off. (No, I am not using Resharper myself, never have) (Yes, I do prefer 'var': it saves keystrokes; intellisense provides me with the name of type if I need it)
-
But if you don't like the option that changes a fully-specified type to 'var', why are you using it? I'm assuming here that Resharper doesn't do that by itself, or if it does that it is a 'feature' that can be turned off. (No, I am not using Resharper myself, never have) (Yes, I do prefer 'var': it saves keystrokes; intellisense provides me with the name of type if I need it)
I don't use resharper myself but most of my colleagues do. In its default configuration it flags a warning on any use of explicit types, suggesting you use var instead. Yes it can be turned off, but no-one does. And yes it can also be ignored, but people would rather just use var to get rid of the wiggly line (see previous comment).
-
ReSharper is the demon responsible for most of this var nonsense!
// Can you guess what VS plug-in I use?
var customers = ctx.Customers.Where(c => c.HasOrders);
var customer = customers.FirstOrDefault();
if (customer != null)
{
var orderCount = customer.Orders.Count;
var value = customer.Orders.Sum(o => o.Total);
var postage = ctx.Postage.Where(p => P.Country == customer.Country);
var valuePlusPostage = value += postage;
var tax = financeHelper.TaxRate;
}And it's not even picked up some of the obvious things! :D
// Where followed by FirstOrDefault or SingleOrDefault can be replaced with an overload of the second function:
var customer = ctx.Customers.FirstOrDefault(c => c.HasOrders);
...
// This is an IQueryable<T> - you can't add it to a number in the line below:
var postage = ctx.Postage.Where(p => P.Country == customer.Country);
...
// Did you really mean to modify the value variable as well as the valuePlusPostage here?
var valuePlusPostage = value += postage;
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I don't use resharper myself but most of my colleagues do. In its default configuration it flags a warning on any use of explicit types, suggesting you use var instead. Yes it can be turned off, but no-one does. And yes it can also be ignored, but people would rather just use var to get rid of the wiggly line (see previous comment).
-
I don't use resharper myself but most of my colleagues do. In its default configuration it flags a warning on any use of explicit types, suggesting you use var instead. Yes it can be turned off, but no-one does. And yes it can also be ignored, but people would rather just use var to get rid of the wiggly line (see previous comment).
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it? -
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it?You're doing a code review in Crucible and you see this statement:
var descendant = GetDescendant();
What is the type of descendant? Is it nullable? Surely Intellisense will tell me what the type is? Oh wait, I'm in a web browser now.
This space for rent
-
You're doing a code review in Crucible and you see this statement:
var descendant = GetDescendant();
What is the type of descendant? Is it nullable? Surely Intellisense will tell me what the type is? Oh wait, I'm in a web browser now.
This space for rent
I implied we were talking about developers and
var, not how it affects reviewers. But fair enough I guess. If you know whatGetDescendant()does, then you'll know the return type (assuming here). If you don't know what the method does, then maybe that should be made clear first. What is more important, the method and what it does, or the specific technical return type? I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just trying to understand your way of thinking. -
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it? -
I implied we were talking about developers and
var, not how it affects reviewers. But fair enough I guess. If you know whatGetDescendant()does, then you'll know the return type (assuming here). If you don't know what the method does, then maybe that should be made clear first. What is more important, the method and what it does, or the specific technical return type? I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just trying to understand your way of thinking.maarten_oosterhoff wrote:
not how it affects reviewers. But fair enough I guess.
Who does your code reviews if it's not developers?
maarten_oosterhoff wrote:
If you know what
GetDescendant()does, then you'll know the return type (assuming here).And what happens when you're reviewing a piece of code that calls a method that was written 5 years ago that you have never had cause to look into? You're introducing blockers for reviewers just because you can't be bothered to type the full type.
maarten_oosterhoff wrote:
What is more important, the method and what it does, or the specific technical return type?
If you don't know the return type, how can you tell if the person whose code you're reviewing is using the type properly or that it will even compile? You have to give people the context to help them.
This space for rent
-
Pretty much what Pete said, you can't discern the types simply by looking at them. Can I find them out? Yes. But I'd rather not have to find them out, I'd rather know by just looking at the code.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you can't discern the types simply by looking at them
Agreed, for things like:
var frob = DoSomething();
But, for cases where the type is obvious,
varcuts down on the clutter:var myFoos = new Dictionary<string, Foo>();
// Vs:
// Dictionary<string, Foo> myFoos = new Dictionary<string, Foo>();However, if for some reason you need the variable type to be an interface or a base type,
varisn't a good option:IDictionary<string, Foo> myFoos = new Dictionary<string, Foo>();
// Vs:
// var myFoos = (IDictionary<string, Foo>)new Dictionary<string, Foo>();Like almost anything,
varhas sensible uses and no-so-sensible uses. It's up to the developer to decide which is which! :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it?varis a compromise my Microsoft that allows VB last-resorters be okay with using a more appropriate strongly-typed language instead of just conforming to a better paradigm than "it's type is whatever it wants to be". In essence, it is the "safe space" of the C# programming language, and is only intentionally used by flaming lib-tards that think all code should be equal.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it?varis a Microsoft mechanism that allows VB last resorters to be okay with using as more appropriate strongly-typed language rather than comply with the actual paradigm of being a real programmer. In essence, it is the "safe space" of programming constructs and as such, is used only by flaming lib-tards that think all code should be equal in the eyes of the compiler. That's what's wrong withvar.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Ok, I'll bite. But I am not saying this or that, just interested in your opinion. Why wouldn't you use
var? What's wrong with it?varis a Microsoft mechanism that allows VB last-resorters to be okay with using as more appropriate strongly-typed language rather than comply with the actual paradigm of being a real programmer. In essence, it is the "safe space" of programming constructs and as such, is used only by flaming lib-tards that think all code should be equal in the eyes of the compiler. THAT is what's wrong withvar.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
varis a Microsoft mechanism that allows VB last-resorters to be okay with using as more appropriate strongly-typed language rather than comply with the actual paradigm of being a real programmer. In essence, it is the "safe space" of programming constructs and as such, is used only by flaming lib-tards that think all code should be equal in the eyes of the compiler. THAT is what's wrong withvar.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013I think you're flaming 😂😂
