Ever use this syntax in C# 7?
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Can't see how this makes maintenance easier at all...
You can probably find people making the same argument for every feature ever introduced since v1.0! :-D I assume you don't use anonymous methods[^] either? Because manually writing a private class to represent a closure makes maintenance so much easier. :laugh: In this specific instance, they should have given the local function a more meaningful name than "
_". But ignoring that, there's no real benefit to sticking with the previous version[^], which had a private static "Impl" method that was only called from the main method.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
class
Classes? Are you insane? These little buggers are nightmare for maintenance. You don't need anything more than assembler, you're just trying to be hip.
-
I use what I need to get the job done - if it is that syntax and is readable and easy to maintain...
-
The more they add to the language, the more I look at it and think it's time to rip it apart and create D# or whatever. Some of this seems to have been added to please one person who might use it, instead of being a general solution to a widespread problem. Can't see how this makes maintenance easier at all...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
With people, we note them as "Jackass of all trades - Master of None". Where's my damn QuickC ?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
return _(); IEnumerable _() {...}
Found this on [MoreLinq](https://github.com/morelinq/MoreLINQ/blob/master/MoreLinq/DistinctBy.cs), it actually took an [SO](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45911116/meaning-of-the-syntax-return-ienumerabletsource) lookup for me to realize they were use a local method with an "anonymous" name. > In this context, the underscore is just an arbitrary name for a local function (which is a new feature introduced in C# 7.0). If you prefer, you could replace the underscore by a more descriptive name. :^) C# is starting to look more like Ruby/Python. The explanation is useful though: > By the way, the reason for having two methods here is so that, in case any argument is null, ArgumentNullException will be thrown immediately when DistinctBy is called instead of when the result is enumerated (due to the presence of the yield return statement). Though, putting this on the same line...I agree with what others wrote. X|
Latest Article - Class-less Coding - Minimalist C# and Why F# and Function Programming Has Some Advantages Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
I can see the value in local functions but, I agree, that code could have been written for better readability. Another one that doesn't quite sit well with me is the new Expression-bodied Members[^] and Throw Expressions. That just makes the code harder to understand if you're new to C#. This one depends more on understanding the convention being used instead of on the intent of the code.
Lambdas have become so important for the language that I don't see the issue with expression-bodied members. It's pretty easy to figure out what they mean even if you've never seen them before. But I can see the argument for "it wasn't needed so why add it?" The throw expressions with a null-coalescing operator, however, is a very logical addition in my opinion. It just makes sense. That operator is great for two things: defaults on null and errors on null. Until now you couldn't do the second instead having to fall back on
if(X == null) throw /*error*/. Granted that isn't much boilerplate compared to the handler code that was simplified with?., but it just makes sense that??should make it unnecessary. -
Lambdas have become so important for the language that I don't see the issue with expression-bodied members. It's pretty easy to figure out what they mean even if you've never seen them before. But I can see the argument for "it wasn't needed so why add it?" The throw expressions with a null-coalescing operator, however, is a very logical addition in my opinion. It just makes sense. That operator is great for two things: defaults on null and errors on null. Until now you couldn't do the second instead having to fall back on
if(X == null) throw /*error*/. Granted that isn't much boilerplate compared to the handler code that was simplified with?., but it just makes sense that??should make it unnecessary.Oh, I can see the value in it, but like I said, someone new to this looks at that and goes "what the :elephant: is THAT?!". I know this because I had three people who have some curly language experience come up, see this, and said that very thing.
System.ItDidntWorkException: Something didn't work as expected. A guide to posting questions on CodeProject
Click this: Asking questions is a skill. Seriously, do it.
Dave Kreskowiak -
I think the reason is so that there is less code on the page. Do more with less. Eventually in C# v45.6 we will be able to accomplish an entire line of code in the span of one character - a super character of sorts. Here is a sample of what a simple "Hello World" console app might look like with C# v45.6.
a
-
Don't you mean:
public void a
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I think you missed the point of my joke. Either that, or just wasn't funny to begin with, which is totally possible. No worries. :sigh:
-
return _(); IEnumerable _() {...}
Found this on [MoreLinq](https://github.com/morelinq/MoreLINQ/blob/master/MoreLinq/DistinctBy.cs), it actually took an [SO](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45911116/meaning-of-the-syntax-return-ienumerabletsource) lookup for me to realize they were use a local method with an "anonymous" name. > In this context, the underscore is just an arbitrary name for a local function (which is a new feature introduced in C# 7.0). If you prefer, you could replace the underscore by a more descriptive name. :^) C# is starting to look more like Ruby/Python. The explanation is useful though: > By the way, the reason for having two methods here is so that, in case any argument is null, ArgumentNullException will be thrown immediately when DistinctBy is called instead of when the result is enumerated (due to the presence of the yield return statement). Though, putting this on the same line...I agree with what others wrote. X|
Latest Article - Class-less Coding - Minimalist C# and Why F# and Function Programming Has Some Advantages Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
Dont know, pretty sure there is a C# forum for this question though. :)
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Can't see how this makes maintenance easier at all...
You can probably find people making the same argument for every feature ever introduced since v1.0! :-D I assume you don't use anonymous methods[^] either? Because manually writing a private class to represent a closure makes maintenance so much easier. :laugh: In this specific instance, they should have given the local function a more meaningful name than "
_". But ignoring that, there's no real benefit to sticking with the previous version[^], which had a private static "Impl" method that was only called from the main method.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
You can probably find people making the same argument for every feature ever introduced since v1.0!
Version 1.0 of C you mean. Or perhaps version 1.0 of Fortran/Algol/Cobol.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Because manually writing a private class to represent a closure makes maintenance so much easier
And easier to read also. And those one liners make debugging a snap as well.
