CarstenCarsten

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      You have left! (?) (thinking…)
      0 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
      CarstenCarsten shared this idea  · 
    • 1,624 votes
      Vote
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        I agree to the terms of service
        Signed in as (Sign out)
        You have left! (?) (thinking…)
        14 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
        CarstenCarsten commented  · 

        Absolutely. I've suggested this lately to the VsNext team, and the response was very positive.

        As always has such stuff been, it's just syntactical sugar, like properties all in all are. Still:

        var c1 = (new[] { "foo", "bar" }).Count;

        but

        var c2 = someIEnumberable.ToList().Count();

        Even coders need some eye candy ;-) Thus, thumbs up thrice!

        CarstenCarsten supported this idea  · 
      • 354 votes
        Vote
        Sign in
        Check!
        (thinking…)
        Reset
        or sign in with
        • facebook
        • google
          Password icon
          I agree to the terms of service
          Signed in as (Sign out)
          You have left! (?) (thinking…)
          53 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
          CarstenCarsten commented  · 

          While it is correct to use Tuple<...> here, it does not meet the point of Dave's idea. Because Tuple<...> derives from System.Object, boxing and unboxing would pop up as soon as value types would be involved.

        Feedback and Knowledge Base