Comments on: Generics. Boon and Bane… http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/ Thoughts and informations I think worthwhile to share... Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:42:12 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Karl http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-9 Karl Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:39:06 +0000 https://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-9 Yeah! I would like to have C# and a Mix of PL/SQL as the new PL/SQL.NET in Oracle 11; C# is fascinating to me and so i like to look into the code even i do not understand everything. karl Yeah!
I would like to have C# and a Mix of PL/SQL as the new PL/SQL.NET in Oracle 11;
C# is fascinating to me and so i like to look into the code even i do not understand everything.

karl

]]> By: ajdotnet http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-8 ajdotnet Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:10:08 +0000 https://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-8 Thanks, I corrected it. (And I also noted that "Oracle Carl" found a coding bug that "C# Gerhard" and ".NET Alexander" missed ;-) - Congratulations!) Thanks, I corrected it. (And I also noted that “Oracle Carl” found a coding bug that “C# Gerhard” and “.NET Alexander” missed ;-) – Congratulations!)

]]> By: Carl http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-7 Carl Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:54:16 +0000 https://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-7 Hi Alex, only some coding stuff - at the begin of your examples you have followig codeline : string infoB = (string)ht["A"]; // returns null you meant : string infoB = (string)ht["B"]; // returns null ? Greetings Karl PS.: Your Blog developes very well! Karl Hi Alex,
only some coding stuff – at the begin of your examples you have followig codeline :

string infoB = (string)ht["A"]; // returns null

you meant :
string infoB = (string)ht["B"]; // returns null
?

Greetings
Karl
PS.: Your Blog developes very well!
Karl

]]> By: ajdotnet http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-6 ajdotnet Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:00:00 +0000 https://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-6 Well, I guess the difference is: - with the HashTable I *may* call ContainsKey to distinguish between keys with null values and keys not present (if I didn't care it didn't get in my way, though) - with the Dictionary I *allways have to* use TryGetValue or check with ContainsKey to be on the safe side. And I better don't forget that. There is no "information loss or gain", it has just become a little harder if you are not interested in that particular bit of information. AJ.NET Well, I guess the difference is:

- with the HashTable I *may* call ContainsKey to distinguish between keys with null values and keys not present (if I didn’t care it didn’t get in my way, though)
- with the Dictionary I *allways have to* use TryGetValue or check with ContainsKey to be on the safe side. And I better don’t forget that.

There is no “information loss or gain”, it has just become a little harder if you are not interested in that particular bit of information.

AJ.NET

]]> By: Gerhard Stephan http://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-5 Gerhard Stephan Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:20:01 +0000 https://ajdotnet.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/generics-boon-and-bane/#comment-5 Hi Alex, yeah - Yesterday I stumbled about this new TryGetValue method too. But after thinking about it a moment, I think it's a good enhancement, because it allows you to add NULL values to a hashtable. Perhaps it's not obvious, but this feature missed in the good old dotNET 1.1 implementation. It was not well-defined if you got a NULL with the indexer because there was no key, or because the key had a NULL value. So everything has two sides. Cheers Gerhard Hi Alex,

yeah – Yesterday I stumbled about this new TryGetValue method too. But after thinking about it a moment, I think it’s a good enhancement, because it allows you to add NULL values to a hashtable.

Perhaps it’s not obvious, but this feature missed in the good old dotNET 1.1 implementation. It was not well-defined if you got a NULL with the indexer because there was no key, or because the key had a NULL value.

So everything has two sides.
Cheers
Gerhard

]]>