Where is the .Dispose?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank Rizzo
  • Start date Start date
F

Frank Rizzo

Ok, this is not a real problem but I am just really curious. I can see
that IDataReader/SqlDataReader implements the IDisposable interface. So
why can't I see the .Dispose method in the intellisense for an
instantiated SqlDataReader object?

Thanks.
 
"Frank Rizzo" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...

| Ok, this is not a real problem but I am just really curious. I can see
| that IDataReader/SqlDataReader implements the IDisposable interface. So
| why can't I see the .Dispose method in the intellisense for an
| instantiated SqlDataReader object?

Because Dispose() is part of IDisposable and if any interface is implemented
explicitly, it is not visible on the class, only on the interface

public class MyClass : IDisposable
{
...

void IDisposable.Dispose()
{
// this is not visible to the class
}
}

{
MyClass mc = new MyClass();

(mc as IDisposable).Dispose();

}

Joanna
 
Ah yes we should have been clear about which version of the framework. 1.x
does use an explicit interface implementation!

Cheers,

Greg
 
"Greg Young" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
%[email protected]...

| Ah yes we should have been clear about which version of the framework. 1.x
| does use an explicit interface implementation!

Ah, OK Greg, I assumed explicit and didn't realise it had changed. Thanks.

Joanna
 
2.0

..method public hidebysig newslot virtual final instance void Dispose() cil
managed
{
.custom instance void
[System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableAttribute::.ctor([System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState)
= ( int32(0x00000001) )
.maxstack 2
L_0000: ldarg.0
L_0001: ldc.i4.1
L_0002: callvirt instance void
System.Data.Common.DbDataReader::Dispose(bool)
L_0007: ret
}

What's interesting is that in VS 2005 it still shows up for me even though
it shouldn't per the documentation unless I am missing something some where
else
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.editorbrowsableattribute.aspx
the value loded here is System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Never.
Can't quite figure out why (I have even tried an example re-implementing the
interface as it does).

---library assembly
public class Class1 : IAge{
int ageval;
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public int Age {
get { return ageval; }
set {
if (!ageval.Equals(value)) {
ageval = value;
}
}
}
}
public class Class2 : Class1, IAge {
}
public interface IAge {
int Age {
get;
}
}

--- main assembly
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Class2 f = new Class1();
//no f.age
}
}

Cheers,

Greg Young
MVP - C#
http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung
 
If you're in C#, you can set the IDE to basically show you everything,
meaning that those Browsable attributse are mostly ignored as far as
intellisense goes.

Greg said:
2.0

.method public hidebysig newslot virtual final instance void Dispose() cil
managed
{
.custom instance void
[System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableAttribute::.ctor([System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState)
= ( int32(0x00000001) )
.maxstack 2
L_0000: ldarg.0
L_0001: ldc.i4.1
L_0002: callvirt instance void
System.Data.Common.DbDataReader::Dispose(bool)
L_0007: ret
}

What's interesting is that in VS 2005 it still shows up for me even though
it shouldn't per the documentation unless I am missing something some where
else
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.editorbrowsableattribute.aspx
the value loded here is System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Never.
Can't quite figure out why (I have even tried an example re-implementing the
interface as it does).

---library assembly
public class Class1 : IAge{
int ageval;
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public int Age {
get { return ageval; }
set {
if (!ageval.Equals(value)) {
ageval = value;
}
}
}
}
public class Class2 : Class1, IAge {
}
public interface IAge {
int Age {
get;
}
}

--- main assembly
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Class2 f = new Class1();
//no f.age
}
}

Cheers,

Greg Young
MVP - C#
http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung


Joanna Carter said:
"Greg Young" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de
%[email protected]...

| Ah yes we should have been clear about which version of the framework.
1.x
| does use an explicit interface implementation!

Ah, OK Greg, I assumed explicit and didn't realise it had changed. Thanks.

Joanna
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
have not changed any .. my own code hides properly.

If you're in C#, you can set the IDE to basically show you everything,
meaning that those Browsable attributse are mostly ignored as far as
intellisense goes.

Greg said:
2.0

.method public hidebysig newslot virtual final instance void Dispose() cil
managed
{
.custom instance void
[System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableAttribute::.ctor([System]System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState)
= ( int32(0x00000001) )
.maxstack 2
L_0000: ldarg.0
L_0001: ldc.i4.1
L_0002: callvirt instance void
System.Data.Common.DbDataReader::Dispose(bool)
L_0007: ret
}

What's interesting is that in VS 2005 it still shows up for me even though
it shouldn't per the documentation unless I am missing something some
where
else
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.editorbrowsableattribute.aspx
the value loded here is System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Never.
Can't quite figure out why (I have even tried an example re-implementing
the
interface as it does).

---library assembly
public class Class1 : IAge{
int ageval;
[EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
public int Age {
get { return ageval; }
set {
if (!ageval.Equals(value)) {
ageval = value;
}
}
}
}
public class Class2 : Class1, IAge {
}
public interface IAge {
int Age {
get;
}
}

--- main assembly
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Class2 f = new Class1();
//no f.age
}
}

Cheers,

Greg Young
MVP - C#
http://codebetter.com/blogs/gregyoung


Joanna Carter said:
"Greg Young" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de
%[email protected]...

| Ah yes we should have been clear about which version of the framework.
1.x
| does use an explicit interface implementation!

Ah, OK Greg, I assumed explicit and didn't realise it had changed.
Thanks.

Joanna
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top