Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a question about c#, but I have no idea how to google it or something. So I''m going to ask it here:
In c#, you have things like "Timer.Interval". Is it possible to make something similair like that myself?
For example, I have this void called "writeLine". I have this boolean, UseDelay, so that my function waits a while before writing things down. I want that boolean to become accessible as "writeLine.UseDelay = false" or "if (writeLine.UseDelay == false)" etc. I'm just curious.
Thanks in advance!
What you're talking about is actually a Property of a class. There are ofcourse ways you can implement your own properties (actually just public variables inside the structure of your class) and your own methods (for example, take a look here). If you're interested in further constructions and options, there is plenty of information on the web.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
In Blazor, certain things like injected objects and parameters must use properties, that part is clear.
But what about those page-specific variables, such as data/DTOs and misc strings/booleans etc used to control the page content and flow?
Is it better to use automatic properties with these all the way (public or private?) or private fields?
I'm asking this because in the various examples, tutorials and documentations related Blazor, use of both properties and fields are all over the place. I cannot seem to find any official best-practice guides on this.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I would like to initialize a record from a class. For example, I read in a bunch of objects from a ReST call. These objects should be immutable, so the record type would fit the bill nicely, but I want to write a bunch of code to convert them to records.
Suggestions?
I'm assuming you don't have write access to the API that creates the classes? Because, honestly, it would probably better just to rewrite that.
There are libraries available such as AutoMapper (https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper).
Beyond that, there are no casts you can use, and unless the classes are highly regular, you need to write custom conversions for each class.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a coworker that keeps renaming object and method in my code. Add S, removing S etc..
I would like to know what is the best way in your opinion.
Suppose I have a class Client.
This Client can set two reminders (wakeupReminder and leaveReminder).
Each of these reminders have different settings.
So I created a Class called WakeUpReminderSettings. He told me that I should rename it to WakeUpReminderSetting because it is not a collection.
I also created a method that return all reminders settings. I named it GetClientRemindersSettings.
Again, he renamed it to GetClientReminderSettings. He's argument: Only the last word should be pluralized..
I would like to have your thoughts on this.
I think you're right in both cases. A WeakUpReminderSettings can be an aggregate of different settings without being a collection, and if your method return settings for multiple reminders, it makes sense to pluralize reminder even if it's not the last work.
Then again, naming conventions are really something subjective, if your coworker is not above you in the hierarchy, I'd tell him to stop messing with your work for minor changes like this.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing a C# app, and I have a class that all it dos is to provide functionality to different class I use.
For example a class that provides clock service and more.
is there any reason to make that class a Singelton class? or Static class?
Or maybe it should not be either?
If your class needs to keep an inner state it should be a Singelton, if it doesn't simply make it static!
Inner states could be:
A file reference
A user preference
Any kind of history
If it is merely a collection of functions etc.. like Math, KISS (keep it simply Static)!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
My MainViewModel has to deal with a lot of commands with complex actions inside, therefore its extension has grown inevitable. For keep the code organized I tend to use #region to group similar o related tasks.Does this considered an overuse of this feature or it's perfectly normal? You may say that it depends on me, if I feel right about it. I think that it helps a lot but I would like to know what do others. Here is a screenshot of how the code look like:
The bad practice is a massive single class. #region is simply hiding / coping with it.
If there are groups of methods, delegate them to another class.