After reading Bill Wagner's excellent introduction to Linq , I really liked what I saw and decided that I wanted to create an extension method as an exercise. I sat and thought what I would have wanted from Linq and decided I wanted to write a method that lets you select hierarchical data . Here's a...

The example of anonymous types from the C# 3.0 specification document is as follows: class __Anonymous1 { private T1 f1 ; private T2 f2 ; // … private Tn fn ; public T1 p1 { get { return f1 ; } set { f1 = value ; } } public T2 p2 { get { return f2 ; } set { f2 = value ; } } // … public Tn pn { get {...

I've had my fair share of disappointments when I found that the closest common denominator between types I wanted to use was object , leading me to write code in a level I did not like, like: class A; // A and B are both imported classes with no class B; // common denominator except for object. class...

I've had my fair share of disappointments when I found that the closest common denominator between types I wanted to use was object , leading me to write code in a level I did not like, like: class A; // A and B are both imported classes with no class B; // common denominator except for object. class...

The example of anonymous types from the C# 3.0 specification document is as follows: class __Anonymous1 { private T1 f1 ; private T2 f2 ; // … private Tn fn ; public T1 p1 { get { return f1 ; } set { f1 = value ; } } public T2 p2 { get { return f2 ; } set { f2 = value ; } } // … public Tn pn { get {...

After reading Bill Wagner's excellent introduction to Linq , I really liked what I saw and decided that I wanted to create an extension method as an exercise. I sat and thought what I would have wanted from Linq and decided I wanted to write a method that lets you select hierarchical data . Here's a...

public static void Do<T>( this TBase value) where T : BaseClass <TBase> The above line of code does not compile. I've been mulling over this for about half an hour and have not come up with a single logical reason why it shouldn't, strong-typing wise, except that it doesn't. I can understand...

The Basic Need Take the following code: public abstract class Base { protected Base( int something) { // ... } } public class Derived : Base { public Derived( int something) : base (something) { // ... } } public class Derived2 : Base { public Derived2( int something) : base (something) { // ... } }...