Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET

Public Shared Function BrainDump(ByVal dotNet As String) As [Value]

News

<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-4330602465258980"; google_hints = "ASP.NET, VB.NET, C#, C#.NET, WindowsForms, .NET Framework, VS2005, Visual Studio, XAML, WinFX, Windows Workflow, WPF, WCF, Atlas, NetFX3, Visual Studio Orcas"; google_ad_width = 120; google_ad_height = 240; google_ad_format = "120x240_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel ="4997399242"; google_color_border = "B6C9E7"; google_color_bg = "EFEFEF"; google_color_link = "0000FF"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "002C99"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>
<!--
-->

You should feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I'm completely nuts in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason whatsoever. That said, I will most likely only delete abusive, profane, rude, or annonymous comments, so keep it polite, please.

Blogroll

Cool .NET Articles

My .NET Tools

My Builder.com Articles

My MSKB Articles

VS2005 MAY 2004 CTP: What Happened To My DefaultInstance?

One of the coolest new features iI saw in the March 2004 CTP bits was the new "DefaultInstance" property in WinForms design. Well, I just installed the May 2004 CTP bits, and when I went to recompile my app, it threw an error. I go ti investigate, and the DefaultInstance property, and it's associated attribute, have been removed. What gives?!?!?? That was a great idea, and should have stayed in. Where did it go?

Posted: May 25 2004, 05:11 PM by interscape | with 3 comment(s)
Filed under:

Comments

Tim Dawson said:

That, IMHO, was one of the worst features MS have ever come up with. VB6 is gone, let's leave it that way.
# May 30, 2004 2:38 PM

Paul Vick said:

We've changed the way that default instances are built - they no longer work off of an attribute on the form, but are built implicitly for forms. So the feature is still there (sorry, Tim) but it's expressed in a different way.
# May 31, 2004 5:28 PM

Robert W. McLaws said:

What way is that, specifically?
# May 31, 2004 5:33 PM