Generic Methods

.NET Generics for generic solutions « The corner for basic and sharp net frameworkers.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:53:38 GMT

PingBack from http://anasoft.wordpress.com/2007/02/03/net-generics-for-generic-solutions/

Generics - Is there more than "Generic Collections"

TrackBack — Mon, 09 May 2005 08:24:00 GMT

I am currently preparing my developer track talks for the local Big>Days 2005 road show and - oh what...

Generics and anonymous methods

TrackBack — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:35:00 GMT

Predicates with .NET 2.0

TrackBack — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:28:00 GMT

Geek Notes 2005-03-11

TrackBack — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:34:00 GMT

Predicates with .NET 2.0

TrackBack — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:06:00 GMT

re: Generic Methods

Christian — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:53:00 GMT

David, I've never written programs with Lisp, but I've used this technique with C++ before.

You've an interesting collection about exotic .NET languages: A#, Objective CAML, Lua, Ruby, F#, JACL.NET, G#, Common Larceny, OCamIL, P#, Boo!, Python, Beta, Forth, Nemerle, Dot-Scheme, Standard ML, IronPython, SmallScript:
http://www.xhovemont.be/category/36.aspx

re: Generic Methods

Christian — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:42:00 GMT

Thanks, RGabo.

re: Generic Methods

RGabo — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:18:00 GMT

foreach (Account a in e)
{
sum += e.Balance;
}

should be

foreach (Account a in e)
{
sum += a.Balance;
}

generics, actions, predicates, anonymous methods make us developers look good :)
RGabo

re: Generic Methods

David Brabant — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:56:00 GMT

Always funny when people are (re)discovering techniques that have been applied in Lisp for close to half of a century ;-).

There is an old saying, which goes like "Any sufficiently sophisticated program implements a buggy subset of a Lisp interpreter". According to my experience, this has *always* been verified. :-)

Thanks for the article, anyway.