Re: [DOTNET] Class Member Initialization.

at its point of declaration vs in a static constructor? Cheers Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

[DOTNET] Overloading based on ref out parameters. Why not?

is a good reason (possibly related to the CLR) then perhaps the change should be made to the ECMA document too. Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Accessor on an accessor not allowed. Why?

bout (as >> implied by Petzold). > >Well you can always do this: > > Size localCopyOfSize = someControl.Size; > localCopyOfSize.Width *= 2; > But this is not enough. You also have to write it back... Size localCopyOfSize = someControl.Size; localCopyOfSize.Width *= 2; someControl.Size = localCopyofSize; as opposed to someControl.Size.Width *= 2; (which still won't work) Cheers Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Problem with hiding derived methods

to be called only through its interface. But of course your methods are static so unless you can refactor to make them instance methods that's out. HTH Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Accessor on an accessor not allowed. Why?

s. >> > The compiler recognizes this and issues a warning(or an error - >> > dont remember offhand). > >From: "Jon Jagger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> But the whole statement might _not_ be pointless. One of the >> main points of a property is t

Re: [DOTNET] Operators, CLS compliance, friendly partner methods

ndly method for every operator? Cheers Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Accessor on an accessor not allowed. Why?

On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:54:23 +0200, Arild Fines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: dotnet discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >> Jon Jagger >> In his book, Jeffrey Richter says >> only that it is for reasons best

Re: [DOTNET] Operators, CLS compliance, friendly partner methods

On Wed, 29 May 2002 09:29:11 -0500, Tomas Restrepo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Jon, > > >> In his excellent book Jeffrey Richter says the Microsoft guidelines >> recommend operators are accompanied by a friendly public instance method >> that calls the operator method internally. For example the

[DOTNET] Operators, CLS compliance, friendly partner methods

method should be an instance method rather than a static method? /2/ why the C# compiler generates a static method called op_Addition for operator+ rather than the recommended instance method called Add? Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or

[DOTNET] Accessor on an accessor not allowed. Why?

chter says only that it is for reasons best known to and understood by compiler writers. Is there a deep reason you hit when implementing the compiler? Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Does C# have equivalent of C++ const parameters/methods?

ssors. /2/ you can never stop simple assignment for a user defined type. /3/ if you write E.M(...) and E is not classified as a variable then you're actually calling M on a copy of E. HTH Cheers Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to

Re: [DOTNET] Is this program conforming?

'll freely admit that it's not really important as well. I happened to come across it while toying with the idea of writing a program to test every sentence in the spec. As it stands I think the problem is that the wording of the spec needs tightening a smidgen. Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

Re: [DOTNET] Setting properties

On Sun, 19 May 2002 01:09:25 -0700, Jon Jagger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 17 May 2002 19:00:49 +0100, Simon Robinson ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Hi guys >> >>I have a class with two integer properties - call them A and B. >>There is a c

Re: [DOTNET] Setting properties

t;properties in any order. > >Any ideas? Is what I want to do possible? Setting is different from initializing, so does this help? Cheers Jon Jagger using System; public class T { public T(int a, int b) { ab = new AB(a, b); } public int A { get {

Re: [DOTNET] Is this program conforming?

On Fri, 17 May 2002 09:24:48 -0700, Jim Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ah, then how about Section 10.3, paragraph 3, items 18 and 19? > >18 The local variable declaration space of a block includes any nested >blocks. >19 Thus, within a nested block it is not possible to declare a local >varia

Re: [DOTNET] Is this program conforming?

On Fri, 17 May 2002 07:34:34 -0700, Jim Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[From the SDK docs] > >"A local variable named 'var' cannot be declared in this scope because it >would give a different meaning to 'var', which is already used in a 'parent >or current' scope to denote something else".

[DOTNET] Is this program conforming?

;t think the program violates this constraint because the second occurence of decl is not in an expression (its in a declarator). Have I missed something or is the compiler being a tad over zealous? Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to

Re: [DOTNET] Hyperlinked HTML ECMA C# Language Spec

On Wed, 15 May 2002 12:15:05 UT, Slavomir Furman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi! > >As for "csharp_36.exe", here is URL (watch for word wrap): > >http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/techinfo/articles/upgrade/Csharpdownload .a >sp Thanks. >Anyone known what exactly was changed with regards to ECMA

Re: [DOTNET] Hyperlinked HTML ECMA C# Language Spec

On Wed, 15 May 2002 00:53:41 -0700, Avi Nahir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thanks. Great community service! Now the spec suddenly seems so thin ... :-) Well, thinner anyway. It certainlly shows much much the ECMA spec is non- normative. >Is this the latest version? There was a very similar MS-W

Re: [DOTNET] Hyperlinked HTML ECMA C# Language Spec

On Tue, 14 May 2002 11:28:55 +0100, =?ISO-8859-15?B? Sm/jbyBQYXVsbyBDYXJyZWlybw==?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello Jon, > >That's a great work! Thanks >Can you provide a link to download your HTML files? >I would like to copy it to my Pocket PC Good idea. I'll try and get round to it today.

[DOTNET] Hyperlinked HTML ECMA C# Language Spec

. The HTML files are now on my web site: http://www.jaggersoft.com/csharp_standard/index.htm Thanks Jon Jagger You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.