I noticed "for" & "while" do accept a statement after the closing bracket just like "do while"

I'll Write some statements to show you what I mean.

//=======================================
using System.Collections.Generic;

int x = 1;
List<int> myList = new List<int>();

for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
myList.Add(i);
} while (x == 0) ;

while (x != 0)
{
x = 0;
} while (x != 0) ;

while (x != 0)
{
x = 0;
} myList.ForEach(i => x += i);

//=======================================

It will be accepted after formatting my code, and of course it won't affect the code logic, but I think it is out of Coding "Sense".

It will be great to have ability to use data from solution source code (classes, enums, structs etc.) in Unit test instead of external or files data providers

Example:
struct UserData
{
string Login;
string Password;
}

var UsersList = new List<UserData>
{
new UserData{"User1","password"},
new UserData{"User2","fdsfs"}
}

[TestMethod(UsersList)]
public void MyTest(UserData user)
{
Asset.IsFalse(SomeAction(user));
}

Alot of time this is more usefull and easy and quicker to use internal data sets instead of external

Also if add here ability to use list of Data Providers as described here http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2843165-add-ability-to-allow-using-list-of-data-providers
(please vote if you like it also) this can be really powerful tool

Example:
[TestMethod(UsersList)]
[DataSource("System.Data.SqlClient", "Data Source=<MyDB>;Initial Catalog=TestDB;Integrated Security=True", "Projects", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)]
[DataSource("System.Data.SqlClient", "Data Source=<MyDB>;Initial Catalog=TestDB;Integrated Security=True", "Operators", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)]
public void MyTest(UserData user)
{
Projects project = ConvertToProject(TestContext["Projects"]);
Operators operator = ConvertToOperator(TestContext["Operators"]);
Assert.IsTrue(SomeAction(project, operator, user))
}

Please Vote if you also need this Ability
Thanks

Suggestion:
Add ability to allow using list of Data Providers for unit test.
If two or more Data Providers connected to unit test then unit test uses multiplication of this data.

Example:
[TestMethod]
[DataSource("System.Data.SqlClient", "Data Source=<MyDB>;Initial Catalog=TestDB;Integrated Security=True", "Projects", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)]
[DataSource("System.Data.SqlClient", "Data Source=<MyDB>;Initial Catalog=TestDB;Integrated Security=True", "Operators", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)]
public void MyTest1()
{
Projects Project = ConvertToProject(TestContext["Projects"]);
Operators Operator = ConvertToOperator(TestContext["Operators"]);
Assert.IsTrue(SomeAction(Project, Operator))
}

For data in tables
Projects
| Id | Setting | Status |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
Operators
| Id | Locale | region |
| 1 | ru-RU | 1 |
| 2 | en-EN | |

This unit test will be executed 6 times

This is really neccessary feature for us and while we haven't this in VS Studio we need to use some our workarounds... But this is not good. (e.g. for testing some reports for projects connected to some operators I need to have tables Projects and Operators in DB this is like application works)

In most cases we in any case creating test data in DB not only for using it in comparing data in Unit test but for application work and this will be very good to use this ata from DB and do unit test for all possible variants

Thanks

There are many programmers and company that develop applications based on geometrical kernels that use OpenGL for drawing (like CAD/CAM applications) often they have an old MFC application, and to pass to a modern view for their applications and give a new user experience for the user they could make new WPF interfaces very quickly but they can't rewrite an entire kernel to pass from OpenGL to DirectX, so often they prefer to remain with MFC without pass to WPF. This could be a very special thing to have the possibility to use OpenGL fully supported by WPF, without airspace iusse.
Now it's possible the integration using HwndHost or WindowsFormsHost but it's not possible to have other WPF control over this, and it's impossible to apply effects and transitions.

// May I suggest a few improvements to (1) field scoping within classes; (2) verbosity of access declarations

// Here is a typical pattern for a field-backed property with lazy / eager initialization
public class Container
{

private readonly int m_someValue;
private Example m_lazyexample;

protected Example LazyExample // lazy init
{
get
{
if (m_lazyexample == null)
m_lazyexample = new Example(m_someValue);
return m_lazyexample; // m_lazyexample is still accessible in the rest of the Container class, thus there is a risk of using it when still null...
}
}

// if I want to change the access level for a projection, I need a new property. that's verbose
public IExample IExample3 // Example implements IExample by the way
{
get
{
return LazyExample;
}
}

public Example EagerExample
{
get;
private set;
}

public Container(int someValue)
{
m_someValue = someValue;

// now with eager initialization...
// I'd like to only do my complex initializations in the constructor
// ...but properties can't be marked "readonly"
this.EagerExample = new Example(someValue);
// there is a risk to overwrite the property later
}

}

//*************************************
// instead I'd like to write the following:
public class Container
{

// WISH 1: multiple access levels depending on projection
// No need to write two separate properties
public IExample, protected internal Example LazyExample
{
// WISH 2: the following field is visible in the property scope only (from both get and set acessors)
// therefore, there is no risk of using a still-null field by mistake somewhere else in the class.
Example m_example;
get
{
if (m_example == null)
m_example = new Example(m_someValue);
return m_example;
}
private set {... }
}

// same issue for event scoping
public event EventHandler<EventArgs> SomeEvent
{
EventHandler<EventArgs> myDelegate; // WISH 3: accessible by add and remove only
add { myDelegate += value; }
remove { myDelegate -= value; }
}

public Example EagerExample
{
get;
private readonly set; //WISH 4: a readonly modifier for set accessors...
}

public Container(int someValue)
{
m_someValue = someValue;
this.EagerExample = new Example(someValue);

// consider also allowing access to the property-scoped backing field in the constructor (to bypass validation and notification in the set accessor, for example).
m_example = ...
}

public void UseExample()
{
// ... so that it is impossible to overwrite the property by mistake later...
// won't compile // this.EagerExample = new Example(1);
}
}

// WISH 5: better explicit interface implementation
// instead of
void IExample.MyMethod() // not directly accessible by derived classes
{
MyMethod();
}

protected void MyMethod()
{
}

// could we have the following like in VB?
protected void MyMethod() implements IExample.MyMethod
{
// both visible to derived classes and available outside of the class after casting to the interface.
}

I am new to C# but im searching a lot for how to transform a simple batch file (move c:\file\fileswithi*.* c:\fileswithi) in a c# program or service.
A simple batch line cant be developed without thousands of operations and complicated methods. I think if this files operations (File.copy,File.move) could be simplified to be like batch operations with REGEX. The * and the others regexs is the most problems that i have been seeing to write a simple code. Instead of a scheduled batch file i would have a Service runing, so much professional, trustable. This is also a great way to encourage the use of visual studio c# express and others softwares

This occurs more with lots of projects (or projects with lots of structure).

The current behavior is clicking a tab in the code window makes the solution explorer jump to that file in the tree view. And most of the time that is fine (and actually helpful).

Sometimes however I want to keep something selected in the Solution's Explorer while I switch to a different file that is already open in the code pane.

I know the first behavior described can be turned off but I would like to see a toggle button (or maybe even a shortcut but I prefer a check box or something similar) for the occasions where I would like the second behavior described to be turned off temporarily. Having to dig through the Tools -> Options just to do this is a pain.