Equivalent of VB's "with"

[Mr Flibble]

Is there an equivalent of VB's "with" statement in c# ?

 

[cp]

Is there an equivalent of VB's "with" statement in c# ?

Nope.

cp

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Is there an equivalent of VB's "with" statement in c# ?

No.

See http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/faq/#vb.with

Jon

 

[Mark Rae]

Is there an equivalent of VB's "with" statement in c# ?

This a FAQ, and the usual reply is "No, thank God!"

 

[Tom Spink]

Is there an equivalent of VB's "with" statement in c# ?

Absolutely not.

 

[Guest]

Ahh, Negatory. Boris, you got plan?

 

[Guest]

Also see:
http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Articles/CSharp Equivalent to VB With.htm
(excuse the product plug at the bottom)

Basically, the gist of it is that "With" is no better than an abbreviated
variable named "x" - it's obscure and also implies somehow that the block
centers around the object being With'ed (when it really just centers around
something you didn't want to re-type).
--
David Anton
www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com
Instant C#: VB to C# converter
Instant VB: C# to VB converter
Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter
C# Code Metrics: Quick metrics for C#

 

[Mr Flibble]

Also see:
http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Articles/CSharp Equivalent to VB With.htm
(excuse the product plug at the bottom)

Basically, the gist of it is that "With" is no better than an abbreviated
variable named "x" - it's obscure and also implies somehow that the block
centers around the object being With'ed (when it really just centers around
something you didn't want to re-type).

" Another alternative is to refactor so that the With block is a new
method with the object passed in as a parameter. You can use a reduced
parameter name length (without making it obscure)."

How do you reduce the parameter name length? can you give me an example?

Cheers,

Signore Flibble

 

[Guest]

It's just a possibility that may or may not be appropriate.

For example, instead of:
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodone()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodtwo()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodthree()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodfour()

You *could* just call a new method:
YourMethod(somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype)

and then the new method defined as:
Public Sub YourMethod(ByVal activeobject As Whatever)
activeobject.methodone()
activeobject.methodtwo()
activeobject.methodthree()
activeobject.methodfour()
End Sub

--
David Anton
www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com
Instant C#: VB to C# converter
Instant VB: C# to VB converter
Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter
C# Code Metrics: Quick metrics for C#

 

[Mark Wilden]

It's just a possibility that may or may not be appropriate.

For example, instead of:
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodone()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodtwo()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodthree()
somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype.methodfour()

You *could* just call a new method:
YourMethod(somehorriblelongnameyoudontwanttoretype)

and then the new method defined as:
Public Sub YourMethod(ByVal activeobject As Whatever)
activeobject.methodone()
activeobject.methodtwo()
activeobject.methodthree()
activeobject.methodfour()
End Sub

Even better would be to make YourMethod a method of the Whatever class.
Making too many calls into another object is known as "feature envy," and it
often (though not always) indicates that there's a new method waiting to be
extracted.

///ark