Search Results

Search found 37074 results on 1483 pages for 'define method'.

Page 10/1483 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • C++: Enum or #define

    - by sub
    I'm building a toy interpreter and I have implemented a token class which holds the token type and value. The token type is usually an integer, but how should I abstract the int's? What would be the better idea: // #defines #define T_NEWLINE 1; #define T_STRING 2; #define T_BLAH 3; /** * Or... */ // enum enum TokenTypes { t_newline, t_string, t_blah };

    Read the article

  • How to define a Crystal Report to Windows Default-Printer with a certain papertray

    - by Ice
    I got the job to design some reports with crystal reports XI for a user-group of nearby 20 peoples. Each user has his own printer on his desk. These printers are attached to the network and are served by a print server. The users have thin-clients and are served by citrix with desktops and so has each user his own windows default printer defined. All printers are from the same type and have some papertrays. the reports in question have to go on paper-tray number 3. I have one *.rpt File and so there is one possibility to define a printer and a paper-tray, but how do i define the windows 'default' printer?

    Read the article

  • templated method on T inside a templated class on TT : Is that possible/correct.

    - by paercebal
    I have a class MyClass which is templated on typename T. But inside, I want a method which is templated on another type TT (which is unrelated to T). After reading/tinkering, I found the following notation: template <typename T> class MyClass { public : template<typename TT> void MyMethod(const TT & param) ; } ; For stylistic reasons (I like to have my templated class declaration in one header file, and the method definitions in another header file), I won't define the method inside the class declaration. So, I have to write it as: template <typename T> // this is the type of the class template <typename TT> // this is the type of the method void MyClass<T>::MyMethod(const TT & param) { // etc. } I knew I had to "declare" the typenames used in the method, but didn't know how exactly, and found through trials and errors. The code above compiles on Visual C++ 2008, but: Is this the correct way to have a method templated on TT inside a class templated on T? As a bonus: Are there hidden problems/surprises/constraints behind this kind of code? (I guess the specializations can be quite amusing to write)

    Read the article

  • Is there a config option in PHP to prevent undefined constants from being interpreted as strings?

    - by mrbinky3000
    This is from the php manual: http://us.php.net/manual/en/language.constants.syntax.php If you use an undefined constant, PHP assumes that you mean the name of the constant itself, just as if you called it as a string (CONSTANT vs "CONSTANT"). An error of level E_NOTICE will be issued when this happens. I really don't like this behavior. If I have failed to define a required constant, I would rather the script fail so that I am forced define it. Is there any way to force PHP to crash the script if it tries to use an undefined constant? For example. Both of these scripts do the same thing. <?php define('DEBUG',1); if (DEBUG) echo('Yo!'); ?> and <?php if(DEBUG) echo('Yo!'); ?> I would rather the second script DIE and declare that it tried to use an undefined constant DEBUG.

    Read the article

  • What, if any, is wrong with this definition of letrec in Scheme?

    - by Lajla
    R5RS gives proposed macro definitions for library forms of syntax: http://schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-10.html#%_sec_7.3 Which also defines letrec, in a very complicated way, certainly not how I would define it, I would simply use: (define-syntax letrec2 (syntax-rules () ((letrec2 ((name val) ...) body bodies ...) ((lambda () (define name val) ... body bodies ...))))) As far as I understand the semantics of letrec, which I use very often as a named let. It works in this way, however as I've had my fair share of debates with philosophers who think they can just disprove special relativity or established phonological theories, I know that when you think you have a simple solution to a complex problem, it's probably WRONG. There has got to be some point where this macro does not satify the semantics of letrec else they'd probably have used it. In this definition, the definitions are local to the body of the letrec, they can refer to each other for mutual recursion, I'm not quite sure what (if any) is wrong.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to implement X-HTTP-Method-Override in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Greg Beech
    I'm implementing a prototype of a RESTful API using ASP.NET MVC and apart from the odd bug here and there I've achieve all the requirements I set out at the start, apart from callers being able to use the X-HTTP-Method-Override custom header to override the HTTP method. What I'd like is that the following request... GET /someresource/123 HTTP/1.1 X-HTTP-Method-Override: DELETE ...would be dispatched to my controller method that implements the DELETE functionality rather than the GET functionality for that action (assuming that there are multiple methods implementing the action, and that they are marked with different [AcceptVerbs] attributes). So, given the following two methods, I would like the above request to be dispatched to the second one: [ActionName("someresource")] [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get)] public ActionResult GetSomeResource(int id) { /* ... */ } [ActionName("someresource")] [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Delete)] public ActionResult DeleteSomeResource(int id) { /* ... */ } Does anybody know if this is possible? And how much work would it be to do so...?

    Read the article

  • Can a conforming C implementation #define NULL to be something wacky

    - by janks
    I'm asking because of the discussion that's been provoked in this thread: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2597142/when-was-the-null-macro-not-0/2597232 Trying to have a serious back-and-forth discussion using comments under other people's replies is not easy or fun. So I'd like to hear what our C experts think without being restricted to 500 characters at a time. The C standard has precious few words to say about NULL and null pointer constants. There's only two relevant sections that I can find. First: 3.2.2.3 Pointers An integral constant expression with the value 0, or such an expression cast to type void * , is called a null pointer constant. If a null pointer constant is assigned to or compared for equality to a pointer, the constant is converted to a pointer of that type. Such a pointer, called a null pointer, is guaranteed to compare unequal to a pointer to any object or function. and second: 4.1.5 Common definitions <stddef.h> The macros are NULL which expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; The question is, can NULL expand to an implementation-defined null pointer constant that is different from the ones enumerated in 3.2.2.3? In particular, could it be defined as: #define NULL __builtin_magic_null_pointer Or even: #define NULL ((void*)-1) My reading of 3.2.2.3 is that it specifies that an integral constant expression of 0, and an integral constant expression of 0 cast to type void* must be among the forms of null pointer constant that the implementation recognizes, but that it isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I believe that the implementation is free to recognize other source constructs as null pointer constants, so long as no other rules are broken. So for example, it is provable that #define NULL (-1) is not a legal definition, because in if (NULL) do_stuff(); do_stuff() must not be called, whereas with if (-1) do_stuff(); do_stuff() must be called; since they are equivalent, this cannot be a legal definition of NULL. But the standard says that integer-to-pointer conversions (and vice-versa) are implementation-defined, therefore it could define the conversion of -1 to a pointer as a conversion that produces a null pointer. In which case if ((void*)-1) would evaluate to false, and all would be well. So what do other people think? I'd ask for everybody to especially keep in mind the "as-if" rule described in 2.1.2.3 Program execution. It's huge and somewhat roundabout, so I won't paste it here, but it essentially says that an implementation merely has to produce the same observable side-effects as are required of the abstract machine described by the standard. It says that any optimizations, transformations, or whatever else the compiler wants to do to your program are perfectly legal so long as the observable side-effects of the program aren't changed by them. So if you are looking to prove that a particular definition of NULL cannot be legal, you'll need to come up with a program that can prove it. Either one like mine that blatantly breaks other clauses in the standard, or one that can legally detect whatever magic the compiler has to do to make the strange NULL definition work. Steve Jessop found an example of way for a program to detect that NULL isn't defined to be one of the two forms of null pointer constants in 3.2.2.3, which is to stringize the constant: #define stringize_helper(x) #x #define stringize(x) stringize_helper(x) Using this macro, one could puts(stringize(NULL)); and "detect" that NULL does not expand to one of the forms in 3.2.2.3. Is that enough to render other definitions illegal? I just don't know. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Where To Call Custom Method? viewDidLoad, viewWillLoad...

    - by Chris
    I am loading some info from a server. I have created a separate method to do this. I am then calling [self myCustomMethod] to run the method. No matter where I call [self myCustomMethod] (initWithNibName, viewDidLoad, viewWillLoad, viewWillAppear, viewDidAppear), the custom method is getting called twice - what's the deal?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Is any simple way to create method and set its body dynamically in C#?

    - by greatromul
    I hold body of method in string. I want to create method dynamically. But I don't know, how to set its body. I saw very tedious way using CodeDom. And I saw using Emit with OpCodes. Is any way to use ready code from string variable? string method_body = "return \"Hello, world!\";"; //there is method body DynamicMethod dm = new System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod("My_method", typeof(string), new Type[] { }); //any way to create method dynamically //any way to set body string result = (string)dm.Invoke(...); //I need write result in variable

    Read the article

  • In Ruby, why is a method invocation not able to be treated as a unit when "do" and "end" is used?

    - by Jian Lin
    The following question is related to the question "Ruby Print Inject Do Syntax". My question is, can we insist on using do and end and make it work with puts or p? This works: a = [1,2,3,4] b = a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end puts b # prints out 10 so, is it correct to say, inject is an instance method of the Array object, and this instance method takes a block of code, and then returns a number. If so, then it should be no different from calling a function or method and getting back a return value: b = foo(3) puts b or b = circle.getRadius() puts b In the above two cases, we can directly say puts foo(3) puts circle.getRadius() so, there is no way to make it work directly by using the following 2 ways: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end but it gives ch01q2.rb:7:in `inject': no block given (LocalJumpError) from ch01q2.rb:4:in `each' from ch01q2.rb:4:in `inject' from ch01q2.rb:4 grouping the method call using ( ) doesn't work either: a = [1,2,3,4] puts (a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end) and this gives: ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected kDO_BLOCK, expecting ')' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected '|', expecting '=' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:6: syntax error, unexpected kEND, expecting $end end) ^ finally, the following version works: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject { |sum, x| sum + x } but why doesn't the grouping of the method invocation using ( ) work in the earlier example? What if a programmer insist that he uses do and end, can it be made to work?

    Read the article

  • Call instance method with objc_msgSend

    - by user772349
    I'm trying to use the objc_msgSend method to call some method dynamically. Say I want call some method in Class B from Class A and there are two methods in class B like: - (void) instanceTestWithStr1:(NSString *)str1 str2:(NSString *)str1; + (void) methodTestWithStr1:(NSString *)str1 str2:(NSString *)str1; And I can call the class method like this in Class A successfully: objc_msgSend(objc_getClass("ClassB"), sel_registerName("methodTestWithStr1:str2:"), @"111", @"222"); And I can call the instance method like this in Class A successfully as well: objc_msgSend([[objc_getClass("ClassB") alloc] init], sel_registerName("instanceTestWithStr1:str2:"), @"111", @"222"); But the thing is to get a instance of Class B I have to call "initWithXXXXX:XXXXXX:XXXXXX" instead of "init" so that to pass some necessary parameters to class B to do the init stuff. So I stored a instance of ClassB in class A as variable: self.classBInstance = [[ClassB alloc] initWithXXXXX:XXXXXX:XXXXXX]; And then I call the method like this (successfully): The problem is, I want to call a method by simply applying the classname and the method sel like "ClassName" and "SEL" and then call it dynamically: If it's a class method. then call it like: objc_msgSend(objc_getClass("ClassName"), sel_registerName("SEL")); If it's a instance method, find the existing class instance variable in the calling class then: objc_msgSend([self.classInstance, sel_registerName("SEL")); So I want to know if there is any way to: Check if a class has a given method (I found "responseToSelector" will be the one) Check if a given method in class method or instance method (maybe can use responseToSelector as well) Check if a class has a instance variable of a given class So I can call a instance method like: objc_msgSend(objc_getClassInstance(self, "ClassB"), sel_registerName("SEL"));

    Read the article

  • UPK and the Oracle Unified Method can be used to deploy Oracle-Based Business Solutions

    - by Emily Chorba
    Originally developed to support Oracle's acquisition strategy, the Oracle Unified Method (OUM) defines a common implementation language across all of Oracle's products and technologies. OUM is a flexible, scalable, and evolving body of knowledge that combines existing best practices and field experience with an industry standard framework that includes the latest thinking around agile implementation and cloud computing.    Strong, proven methods are essential to ensuring successful enterprise IT projects both within Oracle and for our customers and partners. OUM provides a collection of repeatable processes that are the basis for agile implementations of Oracle enterprise business solutions. OUM also provides a structure for tracking progress and managing cost and risks. OUM is applicable to any size or type of IT project. While OUM is a plan-based method—including overview material, task and artifact descriptions, and templates—the method is intended to be tailored to support the appropriate level of ceremony (or agility) required for each project. Guidance is provided for identifying the minimum subset of tasks, tailoring the approach, executing iterative and incremental planning, and applying agile techniques, including support for managing projects using Scrum. Supplemental guidance provides specific support for Oracle products, such as UPK. OUM is available to Oracle employees, partners, and customers. Internal Use at Oracle: Employees can download OUM from MyDesktop. OUM Partner Program: OUM is available free of charge to Oracle PartnerNetwork (OPN) Diamond, Platinum, and Gold partners as a benefit of membership. These partners may download OUM from the Oracle Unified Method Knowledge Zone on OPN. OUM Customer Program: The OUM Customer Program allows customers to obtain copies of the method for their internal use by contracting with Oracle for a services engagement of two weeks or longer. Customers who have a signed contract with Oracle and meet the engagement qualification criteria as published on Customer tab of the OUM Website, are permitted to download the current release of OUM for their perpetual use. They may obtain subsequent releases published during a renewable, three-year access period To learn more about OUM, visit OUM Blog OUM on LinkedIn OUM on Twitter Emily Chorba, Principle Product Manager, Oracle User Productivity Kit

    Read the article

  • No input method choice appear on iBus

    - by phanect
    I've installed iBus and ibus-mozc, and an input method engine of Japanese from the repository, and attempted to enable mozc from Preference > "Input Method" tab > "Select Input Method" combo box. However, there is no choice to select, so I couldn't enable mozc. I also tried ibus-anthy, another legacy Japanese input method, but the situation was the same and I couldn't use anthy. Same problem is also occuring in openSUSE 12.1, so I don't think this is distribution-specific problem. In addition, this trouble also happened when I installed ibus-pynin, so this is not Japanese-specific. Any idea to find the cause of this trouble?

    Read the article

  • Default Parameters vs Method Overloading

    - by João Angelo
    With default parameters introduced in C# 4.0 one might be tempted to abandon the old approach of providing method overloads to simulate default parameters. However, you must take in consideration that both techniques are not interchangeable since they show different behaviors in certain scenarios. For me the most relevant difference is that default parameters are a compile time feature while method overloading is a runtime feature. To illustrate these concepts let’s take a look at a complete, although a bit long, example. What you need to retain from the example is that static method Foo uses method overloading while static method Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters. static void CreateCallerAssembly(string name) { // Caller class - Invokes Example.Foo() and Example.Bar() string callerCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Caller", "{", " public void Print()", " {", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Foo());", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Bar());", " }", "}"); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll", "Common.dll" }, name); new CSharpCodeProvider().CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, callerCode); } static void Main() { // Example class - Foo uses overloading while Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters string exampleCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Example", "{{", " public static string Foo() {{ return Foo(\"{0}\"); }}", " public static string Foo(string key) {{ return \"FOO-\" + key; }}", " public static string Bar(string key = \"{0}\") {{ return \"BAR-\" + key; }}", "}}"); var compiler = new CSharpCodeProvider(); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll" }, "Common.dll"); // Build Common.dll with default value of "V1" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V1")); // Caller1 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V1" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller1.dll"); // Rebuild Common.dll with default value of "V2" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V2")); // Caller2 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V2" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller2.dll"); dynamic caller1 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller1.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); dynamic caller2 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller2.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); Console.WriteLine("Caller1.dll:"); caller1.Print(); Console.WriteLine("Caller2.dll:"); caller2.Print(); } And if you run this code you will get the following output: // Caller1.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V1 // Caller2.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V2 You see that even though Caller1.dll runs against the current Common.dll assembly where method Bar defines a default value of “V2″ the output show us the default value defined at the time Caller1.dll compiled against the first version of Common.dll. This happens because the compiler will copy the current default value to each method call, much in the same way a constant value (const keyword) is copied to a calling assembly and changes to it’s value will only be reflected if you rebuild the calling assembly again. The use of default parameters is also discouraged by Microsoft in public API’s as stated in (CA1026: Default parameters should not be used) code analysis rule.

    Read the article

  • Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

    - by Martin
    I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

    Read the article

  • Why the R# Method Group Refactoring is Evil

    - by Liam McLennan
    The refactoring I’m talking about is recommended by resharper when it sees a lambda that consists entirely of a method call that is passed the object that is the parameter to the lambda. Here is an example: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(n => IsEven(n)); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } When resharper gets to n => IsEven(n) it underlines the lambda with a green squiggly telling me that the code can be replaced with a method group. If I apply the refactoring the code becomes: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(IsEven); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } The method group syntax implies that the lambda’s parameter is the same as the IsEven method’s parameter. So a readable, explicit syntax has been replaced with an obfuscated, implicit syntax. That is why the method group refactoring is evil.

    Read the article

  • Java's Object.wait method with nanoseconds: Is this a joke or am I missing something

    - by Krumia
    I was checking out the Java API source code (Java 8) just out of curiosity. And I found this in java/lang/Object.java. There are three methods named wait: public final native void wait(long timeout): This is the core of all wait methods, which has a native implementation. public final void wait(): Just calls wait(0). And then there is public final void wait(long timeout, int nanos). The JavaDoc for the particular method tells me that, This method is similar to the wait method of one argument, but it allows finer control over the amount of time to wait for a notification before giving up. The amount of real time, measured in nanoseconds, is given by: 1000000*timeout+nanos But this is how the methods achieves "finer control over the amount of time to wait": if (nanos >= 500000 || (nanos != 0 && timeout == 0)) { timeout++; } wait(timeout); So this method basically does a crude rounding up of nanoseconds to milliseconds. Not to mention that anything below 500000ns/0.5ms will be ignored. Is this piece of code bad/unnecessary code, or am I missing some unseen virtue of declaring this method, and it's no argument cousin as the way they are?

    Read the article

  • How to dynamically override a method in an object

    - by Ace Takwas
    If this is possible, how can I change what a method does after I might have created an instance of that class and wish to keep the reference to that object but override a public method in it's class' definition? Here's my code: package time_applet; public class TimerGroup implements Runnable{ private Timer hour, min, sec; private Thread hourThread, minThread, secThread; public TimerGroup(){ hour = new HourTimer(); min = new MinuteTimer(); sec = new SecondTimer(); } public void run(){ hourThread.start(); minThread.start(); secThread.start(); } /*Please pay close attention to this method*/ private Timer activateHourTimer(int start_time){ hour = new HourTimer(start_time){ public void run(){ while (true){ if(min.changed)//min.getTime() == 0) changeTime(); } } }; hourThread = new Thread(hour); return hour; } private Timer activateMinuteTimer(int start_time){ min = new MinuteTimer(start_time){ public void run(){ while (true){ if(sec.changed)//sec.getTime() == 0) changeTime(); } } }; minThread = new Thread(min); return min; } private Timer activateSecondTimer(int start_time){ sec = new SecondTimer(start_time); secThread = new Thread(sec); return sec; } public Timer addTimer(Timer timer){ if (timer instanceof HourTimer){ hour = timer; return activateHourTimer(timer.getTime()); } else if (timer instanceof MinuteTimer){ min = timer; return activateMinuteTimer(timer.getTime()); } else{ sec = timer; return activateSecondTimer(timer.getTime()); } } } So for example in the method activateHourTimer(), I would like to override the run() method of the hour object without having to create a new object. How do I go about that?

    Read the article

  • Fixing a spelling mistake in a method name

    - by One Two Three
    One of the methods that I commonly use in our codebase is misspelled (and it predated me). This really irritates me not simply because it is mispelled but more importantly it makes me ALWAYS get the method name wrong the first time I type it (and then I have to remember "Oh, right, it should be mispelled to this...") I'm making a few changes around the original method. Should I take the opportunity to just rename the freaking method?

    Read the article

  • fixing spelling mistake in method name

    - by One Two Three
    One of the methods that I commonly use in our codebase is misspelled (and it predated me). This really irritates me not simply because it is mispelled but more importantly it makes me ALWAYS get the method name wrong the first time I type it (and then I have to remember "Oh, right, it should be mispelled to this...") I'm making a few changes around the original method. Should I take the opportunity to just rename the freaking method?

    Read the article

  • Pass structure as an argument in c# method

    - by MegaMind
    I want to know if it is possible to pass a Structure as a parameter in c# method and if possible, is it a good practice to do so? I have a c# method which is taking six arguments, i really hate that. I could create a carrier class for that and pass it as an argument, but i want to know if structure could do the job. I want to mention here that few arguments to that method are of ref type and few are of value type.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >