A Blatant Programming Question
-
:laugh: Only the items could be anything, seems very much to resemble a list of different objects, witch you could send around without createing a class. I cant think of a use. WPF and binding seem to make them unnessecary, but what do I know... Im sure that someone will tell you that the planets existens depended on this class...
-
Anonymous classes handle most of these cases and cleaner in my opinion. Who knows what Item0 and Item1 and Item2 is?
-
Not really... ;P There's a discussion going on in the C# forum about Tuples, and I'm curious what one would use them for. From browsing VS2010 Help, it appears to me that this is a way to make vectors of mixed types which, if used as a type for an Array, could allow mixed arrays. Is this correct? And what would be an example of using such a beast? Wouldn't a dataset be more efficient? Enquiring minds want to know, as they say at the checkout counter. :)
Will Rogers never met me.
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd vote anything posted by one of my very favorite posters, Roger Wright, a "one," but in this case I feel there is a compelling reason to do so based on what I view as a concern for the quality of CP as-a-whole, and I have fully explained that here on "Bugs and suggs:" [^]. best, Bill p.s. go ahead and down-vote me all you like: if my entire reputation on CP is wiped out, and I go "underwater," well: let's just say, I have "gills," and "don't give a damn" at nearly 69 years of age: in my opinion if a person by the time of their sixties doesn't know what their values are, and is not willing to go out-on-a-limb, and stand up for them, well ... you fill in the rest of the sentence, please ...
"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us." Kurt Vonnegut
-
Anonymous classes handle most of these cases and cleaner in my opinion. Who knows what Item0 and Item1 and Item2 is?
Anonymous classes handle exactly two of those cases.
-
leppie wrote:
Who knows what Item0 and Item1 and Item2 is?
The Tuple is a generic type so that shouldn't be a problem.
And now you have 2+ problems ;p
-
Anonymous classes handle exactly two of those cases.
Within context, I will handle all of those. But yes, if exposing them non-functionally, only 2.
-
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd vote anything posted by one of my very favorite posters, Roger Wright, a "one," but in this case I feel there is a compelling reason to do so based on what I view as a concern for the quality of CP as-a-whole, and I have fully explained that here on "Bugs and suggs:" [^]. best, Bill p.s. go ahead and down-vote me all you like: if my entire reputation on CP is wiped out, and I go "underwater," well: let's just say, I have "gills," and "don't give a damn" at nearly 69 years of age: in my opinion if a person by the time of their sixties doesn't know what their values are, and is not willing to go out-on-a-limb, and stand up for them, well ... you fill in the rest of the sentence, please ...
"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us." Kurt Vonnegut
Even if you were a mute deaf I would still upvote you ;p
-
If you can't think of a reason, and a custom class or struct will suffice (and be more descriptive), then write a class or struct. I'll occasionally use a Tuple briefly to test something before I write a class. If you can use a class, you should use a class.
People are so scared of writing something once...
-
Well, my biased opinion: Tuples were added to .NET languages because they are an important feature of functional languages, and since Microsoft was adding F# to be IL compatible, they needed support for tuples. Tuples are a simple way of creating typed structures on the fly (type is inferred by the usage of their items), without having to actually create a class or struct. In F#, they are even simpler than records. So, given that, tuples are useful when you need to return more than one value from a function call. For example, a success/fail along with a success/default value. Or the real and imaginary components of a complex number. I don't find tuples necessarily that useful for passing data into a function, the exception being passing the tuple return of one function into another function. Tuples do not replace lists, arrays, or other collections. Does that help? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
tuples are useful when you need to return more than one value from a function call
Yet this is still an ugly hack for returning multiple values. A proper language would be consuming the (remaining) values (on the stack) based on the continuation.
-
Tuple types were added to facilitate language interoperability and to reduce duplication in the framework. As you noticed a tuple is a simple generic data structure that holds an ordered set of items. Tuples are supported natively in languages such as F# and IronPython.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Whenever methodologies become productized, objectivity is removed from the equation. -- Mike Myatt
Given the Python argument, I would prefer .NET support PHP then too ;p
-
Given the Python argument, I would prefer .NET support PHP then too ;p
Here you go: Welcome to Phalanger[^]
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Whenever methodologies become productized, objectivity is removed from the equation. -- Mike Myatt
-
Laziness - that's why I occasionally use them. I feel dirty afterwards.
Ah... Just call the garbage collecter afterword, and you would be fine. :laugh:
-
Anonymous classes handle most of these cases and cleaner in my opinion. Who knows what Item0 and Item1 and Item2 is?
Hi Leppie, I have written a request to you to please give an example of use of anonymous classes here on the "Tuple" thread on the C# forum:[^]. I'd really appreciate hearing more about that ! best, Bill
"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us." Kurt Vonnegut
-
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd vote anything posted by one of my very favorite posters, Roger Wright, a "one," but in this case I feel there is a compelling reason to do so based on what I view as a concern for the quality of CP as-a-whole, and I have fully explained that here on "Bugs and suggs:" [^]. best, Bill p.s. go ahead and down-vote me all you like: if my entire reputation on CP is wiped out, and I go "underwater," well: let's just say, I have "gills," and "don't give a damn" at nearly 69 years of age: in my opinion if a person by the time of their sixties doesn't know what their values are, and is not willing to go out-on-a-limb, and stand up for them, well ... you fill in the rest of the sentence, please ...
"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us." Kurt Vonnegut
While I completely disagree with your opinion, I highly respect it and accordingly, voted you a "5" as well. :-D It was a technical question - which is perfectly valid in the Lounge - about a concept, not a programming help request. It has broad application to multiple languages, and is entirely proper in the Lounge. I found the responses illuminating, but in no way instructive, which was exactly what I was seeking - a general perspective.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
Here you go: Welcome to Phalanger[^]
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Whenever methodologies become productized, objectivity is removed from the equation. -- Mike Myatt
I meant being influenced by the semantics of PHP ;p
-
I meant being influenced by the semantics of PHP ;p
leppie wrote:
influenced by the semantics of PHP
Those being? Mind, I've got nothing against PHP, I just never use it ... ;)
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Whenever methodologies become productized, objectivity is removed from the equation. -- Mike Myatt
-
leppie wrote:
influenced by the semantics of PHP
Those being? Mind, I've got nothing against PHP, I just never use it ... ;)
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Whenever methodologies become productized, objectivity is removed from the equation. -- Mike Myatt
Espen Harlinn wrote:
Those being?
Dont really know, but none or horrible comes to mind ;p
-
Ah... Just call the garbage collecter afterword, and you would be fine. :laugh:
I like your thinking
-
Not really... ;P There's a discussion going on in the C# forum about Tuples, and I'm curious what one would use them for. From browsing VS2010 Help, it appears to me that this is a way to make vectors of mixed types which, if used as a type for an Array, could allow mixed arrays. Is this correct? And what would be an example of using such a beast? Wouldn't a dataset be more efficient? Enquiring minds want to know, as they say at the checkout counter. :)
Will Rogers never met me.
The concept of using arrays has been bought up - and why use them instead of arrays. It's because arrays have no type safety - leading to logical bugs at runtime. For example: Buggy code:
// I promise to return an array of length 2, with a String and Double.
public static object[] DoStuff()
{
return new object[] { "Hello", 123 }; // Did you mean 123.0?
}public static void Main()
{
var ret = DoStuff();
var a = (string)ret[0]; // What happens if DoStuff() doesn't return the correct number of items?
var b = (double)ret[1]; // As above, as well as what if the type is wrong (which it is)?
}Contrast this with:
// No comment required because this documents itself.
public static Tuple DoStuff()
{
return Tuple.Create("Hello", 123); // Compiler error, not runtime error! Wooo!
}public static void Main()
{
var ret = DoStuff();
var a = ret.Item1; // Always succeeds.
var b = ret.Item2; // Always succeeds.
}Finally consider the [
internal, clearly] extension method magic you can do. So basically they are needed when you need an array of fixed length where each element in the array is a strong type. Remember that C# is [typically] a strongly-typed language andTupleis a great citizen in the .Net type system for any language that is strongly-typed (and functional languages like F# too). You could write a class that represents your return type/whatever, but then again, why do you useDictionary<TKey, TValue>? Shouldn't you write a specific type for that?Tupleis as much as a strongly-typed primitive as an array (it was just previously missing); it just needs to be used correctly (see above paragraph). Edit: Yes, I know that it originates from functional languages, but as always the .Net Framework team are showing us that at the end of the day all things are the same: and today the functional features in C# feel like natural parts of a imperative language (even though previously they were not). I strongly feel that the same principle applies toTuple. Yes, I know that a runtime based on multiple return values (like Go) would be more 'correct'; but theTupleis the biggest bang for 'risk buck' - in addition you can use it in places other than return types. Basically, learn to love that your cheese was moved into the fridge (where it belongs).He who asks a question i
-
Not really... ;P There's a discussion going on in the C# forum about Tuples, and I'm curious what one would use them for. From browsing VS2010 Help, it appears to me that this is a way to make vectors of mixed types which, if used as a type for an Array, could allow mixed arrays. Is this correct? And what would be an example of using such a beast? Wouldn't a dataset be more efficient? Enquiring minds want to know, as they say at the checkout counter. :)
Will Rogers never met me.
When defined at compile-time, a tuple is nothing else than a struct (a class if you prefer) and each member is referenced by a name. The .NET Tuples allow defining them at run-time, referencing the members by an index, to allow some form of run-time polymorphism. You will use a .NET Tuple when the composition of the items is unknown until run-time, for instance if it is input by the user.