There was a dotnet equivalent to the Spy++ tool called ManagedSpy back
in the day.
This looks like related, no idea if it still works:
https://github.com/ForNeVeR/ManagedSpy
-Tony
On 14/07/2022 14:35, David Burstin via ozdotnet wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a current tool that can be
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a current tool that can be used like Hawkeye used to be
- specifically I want to be able to run a winforms app and then use the
tool to target specific controls to see what their instance name is. I am
fixing a bug in a legacy program and half the struggle is working
I used to wonder about public fields vs. properties.
But it doesn't seem like much of an issue now that you can just write it as
a one liner
string Name { get; set; }
(or by typing *prop* and hitting tab twice)
Since that new auto backed properties are so easy, I just use them as my
default
The thing with properties is that once you have them, changes can be
completed without changing the interface, including the binary
compatibility of public interfaces.
Nevertheless, if your class of variables is not public I too would
consider just using fields.
--
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma
One other thing to consider is that fields cannot be part of an interface,
so if you are doing TDD and need to mock a field it can't be done.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Mark Hurd markeh...@gmail.com wrote:
The thing with properties is that once you have them, changes can be
completed
put different access modifiers on the get/set of a field.
You can use abbreviated property { get; set; } syntax, so why not do that
instead of using fields, and you'll get the possible benefits later. I doubt
if there is any performance difference between fields and properties (unless
anyone has
in calls to any arbitrary method - `ref` parameters are bad
in my book in any case - and if this happens then you can't change the field
to a property later on as properties cannot be passed as `ref` parameters.
. Code to use reflection is different for accessing fields and
properties. If you
True, with properties, changes can be completed maintaining binary
compatibility.
But really how often do you have an assembly where binary compatibility is
actually an issue?
Sometime sure, but I'm thinking it's more often the exception than the rule.
Adding properties in later maintains source
The OP wasn't asking if properties are more feature rich so no, I wont
back you up on this one :)
My opinion is, it depends. There is nothign wrong with using public
fields if it makes sense. If you have a private class that will never
change or changes are trivial to propagate then sure, use
of
violence) unless you create methods (which is all properties really are).
That's not because i'm a purist - there are just fewer things to worry about
when your classes are mostly immutable except via behaviours you choose to
add to them.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Sinclair
create methods (which is all properties
really are).
That's not because i'm a purist - there are just fewer things to worry
about when your classes are mostly immutable except via behaviours you
choose to add to them.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Sinclair
jeff.sinclair.em...@gmail.com
up the property the long way. but you can use it.
As I say all this is from memory nubut I hope it is correct
Martyn
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:18:38 +1000
Subject: Re: VB10 auto readonly properties?
From: bec.usern...@gmail.com
To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com
Damn! Thanks Winston!
On Fri
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:18:38 +1000
Subject: Re: VB10 auto readonly properties?
From: bec.usern...@gmail.com
To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com
Damn! Thanks Winston!
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, backing connect report:
https
Don't think it's supported, has to be the long way, i.e.
ReadOnly Property Test As String
Get
End Get
End Property
ReadOnly Property
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bec Carter bec.usern...@gmail.com wrote:
In C# I can do this
public string MyProperty { get;
Also, backing connect report:
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/457176/readonly-auto-implemented-properties
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.comwrote:
Don't think it's supported, has to be the long way, i.e.
ReadOnly Property
Damn! Thanks Winston!
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, backing connect report:
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/457176/readonly-auto-implemented-properties
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Winston Pang winstonp
Something I stumbled upon which is tangentially related, is the Evolutility
project http://www.evolutility.org/ .
May be worth a look . basically, the old data driven idea applied to
databases with ASP.NET page rendering.
_
Ian Thomas
Victoria Park, Western Australia
Sorry, I think I didn't make it clear, the person who asked me us to do this
was a Senior Developer on their team. They too could be lurking these
mailing list, which would be cool if they replied too! :D
So it's not so much about educating them... I'm sure they are Senior
enough to know the
So often those things are black and white. They can be done one way, and the
other way can be argued wrong. But then on the other hand there are reasons
why the other way can be right.
When I come across people who believe in the inverse of myself it's usually
in the middle of something that
Subject: Re: ASP.NET Control databinding, member properties, dynamically fetch
property name?
Thank you.
What is the name of concept we are dealing with here, Lambda and Property
Binding ?
On 27 May 2010 06:23, David Kean david.k...@microsoft.com wrote:
Here's an example:
class Property
.
-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:37 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: ASP.NET Control databinding, member properties, dynamically
fetch property name?
Thank you.
What
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:51 AM, David Kean david.k...@microsoft.com wrote:
I’m really interesting in hearing why people think this is a bad idea. I’ve
done this in a few code bases (not ASP.NET, but WinForms) and it nothing but
pure goodness from my perspective.
Why do you do it? Is it only
Not quite related. It's basically just Lambda Expressions, google that.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Arjang Assadi arjang.ass...@gmail.comwrote:
it seems this is called lambda dependency and lambda binding
I found this :
It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have to
refactor code all the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the first
time.
When you think about it, it's really just a nature extension to typeof. We
don't hard code type names, so why hard code member names
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Kean david.k...@microsoft.com wrote:
It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have to
refactor code all
the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the first time.
I don't understand this. Why make it like some sort of joke
2010 10:22, silky michaelsli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Kean david.k...@microsoft.com wrote:
It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have to
refactor code all
the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the first time.
I don't
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Arjang Assadi arjang.ass...@gmail.com wrote:
Silky it is not a joke.
What Dean is saying and I also agree with is this:
We the programmers need to palm off as much as possible to tools we use.
I am not smart enough to remember all the strings in my code
, member properties, dynamically fetch
property name?
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Kean david.k...@microsoft.com wrote:
It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have
to refactor code all the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the
first time.
I don't
not answering your questions directly but another option is to define
the datasource in the markup and link it to the combobox which lets
you change the property names without needing to regenerate the
assembly.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Their issue is refactoring, when changing the type names, string's won't be
part of refactoring.
I have put them in the markup whenever possible, however there are
instances, where I have to do it int he code behind, as the third party
control, requires me to hook into an event to retrieve this
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
This is more of a question of whether or not this sounds feasible and has
anyone seen anyone do this:
Typically with most ASP.NET controls, lets take the ComboBox for an example,
it'll be like
On 26 May 2010 08:35, Winston Pang winstonp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
This is more of a question of whether or not this sounds feasible and has
anyone seen anyone do this:
Typically with most ASP.NET controls, lets take the ComboBox for an example,
it'll be like
Well, firstly. The client is govt, and we're really dealing with their
internal IT team, who would eventually do supporting for the system.
I have no say in whether we do it or not, I've told them, it's redundant,
and uncommon, and a bit too much. I've done all I can, can't fight anymore
about
Or
Just an opportunity to do something different, that is what they want
that is what we will give them,
or even better ask them why? where did they get the idea to have it
like that from and understand their real concerns that has facilitated
the odd requirements, maybe there is method to their
34 matches
Mail list logo
