This vs. that

[V 0]

Unless I have a construct like:

public class X{
private int number;

public X(int number){
this.number = number;
}
}

I rarely uses this.

V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)

[R Erasmus]

I would say to use the property assignment 'this' in the following scenario:

void foo(int someValue)
{
this.someValue = someValue;
this.SomeMethod(AnotherClass.SomeMethod());
}

But not in the following scenario:

void foo()
{
someValue = 5;
SomeMethod(5);
}

With ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod() I'd always use is as you did unless of course you are using the static method of the class you are working in, then I'd just use SomeStaticMethod.

"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." << please vote!! >>

[Keith Barrow]

Errrm, this.

Alberto Brandolini:

The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

[Agent__007]

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.

[Nagy Vilmos]

this is good and I use it normally. The fact that it seems to annoy some pooples just encourages me to use it more. :-D

[den2k88]

"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 ;)

[Slacker007]

_Maxxx_ wrote:

(like conflicting names)

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Slacker007]

such a trouble maker and non-conformist. :-D

[Freak30]

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.

[BillWoodruff]

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."

[ZurdoDev]

Interesting that a lot of people do use this. I did not expect that. :-\ I don't like it. It just clutters up with extra code that is unnecessary. :^)

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Sander Rossel]

BillWoodruff wrote:

At best, a syntactic sugar

Almost agreed. The var keyword can actually be quite dangerous as I have witnessed a few times myself. I work with Entity Framework a lot, which uses IQueryable to create queries that run on the database and return a result as IEnumerable that can be used in your application. Interface-wise there is little difference between IQueryable and IEnumerable, but the function of the two differs greatly! A few times I changed my IQueryable to IEnumerable and nothing broke, because the IQueryable was declared using var. The type of my variable just 'silently' changed to IEnumerable and all of a sudden my app wouldn't perform very well. Thing is, in order to create an IEnumerable the query was executed on the database. This was supposed to happen a few lines later, but because I put a ToList() 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 your IQueryable as IEnumerable (an IQueryable IS an IEnumerable), 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 as IQueryable, but I could imagine it happening when working with Streams or some such base class which has a few subclasses that do different things.

My blog[^]

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

[Sander Rossel]

I don't think you have to type anything at all...

My blog[^]

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

[Sander Rossel]

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!

My blog[^]

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

[Lost User]

I have noticed in Android (and Java generally) they often prefix with m like mSomeMemberVariable instead of using this. maybe it depends on the IDE if it has a good IntelliSense.

[Nish Nishant]

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 Nishant]

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

[PIEBALDconsult]

Nish Sivakumar wrote:

StyleCop

X|

[Nish Nishant]

Heh :-) Not everyone's cup of tea, I know.

Regards, Nish

---

Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com