Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: "Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cpub@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 01:05:47 +0300
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:O4zzdaoUFHA.3432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Sorry, I just realized I did that. No, its just something thats been
> discussed ad nausem in these groups.
Actually if it "Was" that way it would be very bad unless it was a special
syntax. When I saw 1..50, I read "set of 1 to 50" (Delphi). So if it creates
set - that would be BIG, and also the in would not guarantee order....
But non the less Id be ok with that syntax if it was interpeted as a for loop
and not a set. :)
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"
Empower ASP.NET with IntraWeb
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/
.
- References:
- Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
- Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- From: Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]
- Implicit overloads, non static
- Prev by Date: Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- Next by Date: Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- Previous by thread: Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- Next by thread: Re: Implicit overloads, non static
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
