Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    To elaborate maybe some method has a name that its first letter is at the end of the alphabet.

    like so VerticesInitializer() in SomeClass
    or

    ///<summery>
    /// pardon the silly name
    /// But lets say this method is really important so my comment is
    /// You must call this every turn.
    /// </summery>
    public void ZorderUpdate(){ect...}

    As such when i type the class name for myself or others will
    i see the top methods listed knowing its all alphabetical.

    SomeClass. i.e. when i type the >.<
    i get a list of class methods.however they are just alphabetically listed. i might want a couple of the methods at the very top of the list that are important or some methods listed last as they are very seldom intended to be used ect...

    this overall would speed up my own productivity and ease of use

    Anonymous shared this idea  · 
  2. 185 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    10 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Its kinda crazy ms long ago did all they could to promote dx over gl
    Now its like a 180. They are kinda like go use gl or find a open source api
    We just don't have time to worry about the c# guys
    Or giving them a way to directly access graphics and sound acceleration ? lol ?

  3. 353 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    53 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Not to be mean but this is both ugly and pointless.
    Not only is it anti productive hard to read but what your asking for can be done by passing objects that contain the data required working on it and then returning it.
    Further a method is not constrained from accessing things because you cant but as a rule of general good programing practice to keep your stuff organized.

    you can say

    public A a - new A()
    public int b = 5;
    public string mystring = "somename";
    // ect...

    having a method called from any anywere that is basically void like

    public void DoAlotOfStuff()
    {
    // and here you can access and work on all those variables
    // is it clean and well organized prolly not.
    // is it better than what you proposed with clear comments and a good name ?...
    // i would say yes
    // as a general rule step back from your computer screen look at what you wrote and ask.
    // is that ugly or good looking.
    }

    Anonymous commented  · 

    i did'nt run that im sure there is a bug but you should get the general idea

    Anonymous commented  · 

    Let me show below that this is easy to do already and less constricting

    you're example
    ..."Quote"
    Imagine if TryParse were defined as (sort of a quick return class definition):

    public static private TryParseResult {bool Success,int value, string Error}
    Int32.TryParse(string value);

    Usage:

    TryParseResult result= Int32.TryParse(mystring);
    if (result.Success)
    {
    Console.WriteLine(“Number:{0}”,result.number);
    } else {
    Console.WriteLine(“Error parsing:{0},result.Error);
    }
    ....EndQuote"

    Consider
    public static class TryParseHelper
    {
    public static int number = 0;
    public static string input ="";
    public static bool success = false;
    public static string messege = "";
    //
    public static bool TryParseResultsInt32{string input,out int number, bool throwException)
    {
    if (Int32.TryParse(input,out number)
    {
    TryParseHelper.number = number;
    TryParseHelper.success = true;
    TryParseHelper.input = input;
    TryParseHelper messege = "no errors"
    }
    else
    {
    TryParseHelper.number = -1;
    TryParseHelper.success = false;
    TryParseHelper.input = input;
    TryParseHelper messege =
    "Error the input is not in the Format of a Number"
    if(throwException)
    {
    throw new FormatException();
    }
    }
    }
    }

    Though the throw is redundant
    You could instead simply pass a action delegate in as a parameter all your info is in the static class anyways.
    The parameter bool throwException replaced by Action callonfailure
    even that is redundant.
    As well none of this need be static at all it is just for on the spot call

    Example usage would be like so,,,

    int myint = 2;
    TryParseHelper.TryParseResultsInt32("1", myint, OnFailure);

    and that's it

    Anonymous commented  · 

    honestly if we can get this but i cant get overloaded methods based on a return type
    which would give c# uber super powers
    then something is seriously wrong

    Anonymous commented  · 

    I understand its useful for linq
    all im saying is i just really think its gonna be abused badly

    Im not arguing against your suggestion which at least makes sense
    it is arguable for or against at the least
    (to be honest i do want this but im also a bit scared to have it
    and posts like these is sort of one example of why)

    im arguing against this suggestion which has 211 votes and is complete utter nonsense,
    the example is first of all ... it is just bad and illogical
    it wouldn't even work right if this stuff was already allowed
    secondly
    not only does he want multiple return types
    he wants assignments in the return types declaration and return type assignment definition (i guess that's what you call it)
    lastly
    the point of the example is one of the most overly complicated examples of a simple tryparse or search type problem
    so i think it is fair to show a actual simple solution that makes sense

    to boot... what i did isn't even try parse,
    its just a solution to his example problem with a out and return bool that's it.
    which begs the question...
    where is the example were this solves or really makes something much easier without causing a bigger problem ....
    because this example right here .... this is a reason actually to Not add it...

    so yes the fact that this has 211 votes irks me a little
    who is going to use it and for what,
    i think the example in the post shows something about that
    i just don't think you can have your cake and eat it too on this one

    Anonymous commented  · 

    well im pointing out exactly that...
    you need a better example case then one shown

    that is simply obfusicating a normal coding problem
    to the point were it is so confusing and so easily abused
    that it will create more problems then it will solve
    were the problem that it solves is trivial under the example shown
    edit:
    out is used like this in the TryParse methods and i think its a wonderful idea
    in fact its so nice this Method should be called TryToFindStringIndex(..,..,...)
    which is just about what the OP was trying to describe by his example in name

    Anonymous commented  · 

    seriously thats super lazy whats wrong with this or even a error index class
    that is reusable and can be filled with the index value and error messege

    string[] myStrings= new string{ ect...
    string msg = "";
    int index =-1;
    if(FindString(myStrings,"whatever",out index))
    {
    msg = "no error, index ="+index+" , "+myStrings[index];
    }
    else
    {
    msg = "error searched string not found";
    }

    bool FindString(string[] strings, string string_to_find, int out index)
    {
    bool result = false;
    int i = -1;
    index = -1;
    foreach(var s in strings){
    i++;
    if(s == string_to_find)
    {
    index = i;
    result = true;
    }
    }
    return result;
    }

    Anonymous commented  · 

    really.....?....is this a joke ?
    whats next ....

    public {var i,bool IsError = false} GetUmSomthingFromSomething(string[] mystrings,string dafaq,SomeClassObj obj)
    {
    // im not even going to start on how illogical that method example is or
    // why it will never actually error out even if its in error but lets keep going
    var n=FindStringIndex(mystrings,dafaq);
    /* some more fake error checks */
    var e = GetInErrorPlusSomeOtherErrocheck(n,obj)
    var i = {n,obj};
    return {i,e};
    }

    // usage
    // oh yaaaaaa sure.... im not even gonna try that....
    // and finding bugs good luck with that
    // and id love to see the api documentation on this class
    // example just call var.var.var.IsError or if that dont work try var myvar = var.var.dafaq.IsError

  4. 6,013 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    212 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Though i posted the code below for a basic check
    I think most of us can see the dangers that are associated with doing things like this.
    For the receiver getting garbage data of a sender doing this.

    will

    Anonymous commented  · 

    So is what is asked for a more robust version of something like below...
    Maybe someone who is really good with reflection could improve this.

    public class myclassb { public myclassb() { } }
    public class myclassc { public myclassc() { } }

    public MyConstructor()
    {
    object a = null;
    myclassb b = new myclassb();
    myclassc c = null;

    // test
    if (TryInstantiateNull(ref a)) { Console.WriteLine(" some if else msg when wraping the a createinstance failure"); }
    if (TryInstantiateNull(ref b)) { };
    if (TryInstantiateNull(ref c)) { };
    }

    bool TryInstantiateNull<T>(ref T a)
    {
    bool result = false;
    Console.Write(" null check ");
    if (a == null)
    {
    result = true;
    Console.Write(" is null!!!");
    T t;
    t = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
    a = t;
    }
    if (a != null)
    {
    Console.WriteLine(" - is not null ");
    result = false;
    }
    return result;
    }

    /* output
    *
    * null check is null!!! - is not null
    * null check - is not null
    * null check is null!!! - is not null
    *
    */

    Anonymous commented  · 

    i think we need some giant red buttons labeled

    [help i dont know what im doing]
    and
    [im super lazy auto program for me]

    Anonymous commented  · 

    this is so absolutely stupid to me
    i don't understand why this is even needed or for what it is needed

    why not a property guess what... its auto initialized... that's what properties do... try it yourself ....

    to boot this suggestion borders the most fundamental harasy
    the idea of non strict types and no type safety
    whats next [non strict] C1 c;

    hey check it out... how about this ?
    public class A
    {
    string Value{get;set;}
    }

    how do you even say this [NotNull] string value in a parameter
    what if you need to pass null to the value ? you what to change the language because of your particular constructor

    so the compiler has to check parameters for non null so then other people can complain about even slower compiles because were so lazy

    class C2 {
    public C2(string value) { if (value == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) new C1(value);}
    }
    "This clearly shows how strongly reduced performance because of the presence of such verifications"

    are you kidding ? for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) new C1(value);}
    first who puts this in there constructor for absolutely no reason

    second you want a [non null] keyword that magically writes this basically
    { if (value == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
    but
    your saying that somehow by magic it will be more performant if the compiler or jit adds the code to infer the check dynamically instead of you typing in that line in your very specific constructor really ?

    my real question
    is were is any real example of any need for this or
    anyone that actually needs this because
    they couldn't simply use a property instead ?

  5. 2,308 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    33 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    MonoGame

    Anonymous commented  · 

    i think the xna5 ,
    .net in xbox one
    or Sim d
    is better to place your votes

  6. 356 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    35 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Games  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    in many ways monogame needs more support as it is more ambitious then xna
    and broader in scope it basically is targeted to everything

    Anonymous commented  · 

    maybe just make the content pipeline open source
    though i think its too late for that as for use in monogame
    as on the mono-game github site
    the recent activity is that they are prep-ing to switch over
    to a new cross-platform content pipeline of their own
    so it probably would be no use for them

    they do have the tools for it internally.
    its just very very hard to setup and use .fx files currently.

  7. 249 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    15 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » Languages - C#  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    what i ran into before and i hated it, cause it was such a pain to come back to
    was casting nullables back to non-nullables

  8. 181 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » .NET  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    long overdue

  9. 1,120 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    40 comments  ·  Visual Studio IDE » .NET  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    i actually read lately that alot of foriegn countrys and buisness still use xp and a considerable amount of regular people are as well and so do i so ill throw my points at this
    since i cant throw them ALL at gpu for #net or xna 5

Feedback and Knowledge Base