Writing event handlers in C#

[Frank Oquendo]

Coming from VB/VB.NET, I appreciate C#'s terseness when it comes to event
handler signatures but how do you look them up?

In the code window, the only object shown in the object list is my form. I
find myself having to refer to the help in order to determine the correct
signature. Once I've got that done, I then either have to modify the
wizard-generated code to attach the handler or use the Properties window to
associate my handler with an event.

Is there an easier way?

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.acadx.com

[Jonathan Allen]

> Coming from VB/VB.NET, I appreciate C#'s terseness when it comes to event
> handler signatures

Huh? VB.Net has the same event signatures as C#.

Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the event
code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the event
name.

--
Jonathan Allen



"Frank Oquendo" <franko@acadx.com> wrote in message
news:3c0c0d22$1@147.208.176.211...
> Coming from VB/VB.NET, I appreciate C#'s terseness when it comes to event
> handler signatures but how do you look them up?
>
> In the code window, the only object shown in the object list is my form. I
> find myself having to refer to the help in order to determine the correct
> signature. Once I've got that done, I then either have to modify the
> wizard-generated code to attach the handler or use the Properties window
to
> associate my handler with an event.
>
> Is there an easier way?
>
> --
> Good judgment comes from experience.
> Experience comes from bad judgment.
>
> http://www.acadx.com
>
>
>
>

[Frank Oquendo]

C#:
private void DragDropHandler(object sender,
System.Windows.Forms.DragEventArgs e)

VB.NET:
Private Sub DragDropHandler(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As
System.Windows.Forms.DragEventArgs)

The extra specifiers add up. Not to mention the rest of the language is also
quite terse. I love VB but all that verbosity is starting to get to me. It's
amazing how similar the syntax is. Casting is a whole lot easier, too. I may
have to start doing some serious digging into C#.

In any event, thanks for the double-click thing. That certainly is handy.

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

http://www.acadx.com


"Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
news:3c0c1705@147.208.176.211...
>
> Huh? VB.Net has the same event signatures as C#.
>
> Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the
event
> code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the event
> name.
>
> --
> Jonathan Allen

[Jonathan Allen]

> The extra specifiers add up. Not to mention the rest of the language is
also
> quite terse.

That depends on how you measure the length of the line. If you count tokens
instead of characters, VB is often shorter than C#. Especially when you can
take advantage of special modifiers like Handles, which can eliminate many
lines of code.

> Casting is a whole lot easier, too.

I do not like the casting in either language, but that is another battle.

--
Jonathan Allen



"Frank Oquendo" <franko@acadx.com> wrote in message
news:3c0c1c29@147.208.176.211...
> C#:
> private void DragDropHandler(object sender,
> System.Windows.Forms.DragEventArgs e)
>
> VB.NET:
> Private Sub DragDropHandler(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As
> System.Windows.Forms.DragEventArgs)
>
> The extra specifiers add up. Not to mention the rest of the language is
also
> quite terse. I love VB but all that verbosity is starting to get to me.
It's
> amazing how similar the syntax is. Casting is a whole lot easier, too. I
may
> have to start doing some serious digging into C#.
>
> In any event, thanks for the double-click thing. That certainly is handy.
>
> --
> Good judgment comes from experience.
> Experience comes from bad judgment.
>
> http://www.acadx.com
>
>
> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0c1705@147.208.176.211...
> >
> > Huh? VB.Net has the same event signatures as C#.
> >
> > Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the
> event
> > code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the
event
> > name.
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Allen
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:12:09 -0800, "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com>
wrote:

>That depends on how you measure the length of the line. If you count tokens
>instead of characters, VB is often shorter than C#.

That's certainly not the case in the post you replied to. What's up with
you anyway? If you don't like c# that's fine, don't use it, but then I
don't like vb.net so I guess that makes us even.


--
It's never too late to have
a happy childhood.

[Kunle Odutola]

"Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
news:3c0c3106@147.208.176.211...
> > The extra specifiers add up. Not to mention the rest of the language is
> also
> > quite terse.
>
> That depends on how you measure the length of the line.

Hey?

> If you count tokens
> instead of characters, VB is often shorter than C#.

If you count semicolons only, you'll find that VB lines are always shorter
than C# lines. But what does that prove?

Kunle

[djdjdj dkskdsk]

Jonathan,

> Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the
event
> code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the event
> name.
>

Is there an IDE shortcut for getting the signature of methods you want to
override?

Michael

[Jonathan Allen]

> If you count semicolons only, you'll find that VB lines are always shorter
> than C# lines. But what does that prove?

It proves that C# uses to many semi-colons. Seriously though, I count line
length by tokens instead of characters because that is how I think.

When most people see "equals", they see a single word. They do not think of
it as a series of letters to be considered individually. The same goes for C
programmers, who see "==" as the equality operator instead of two equal
signs in a row. The same goes for VB keywords. When I see "Then" or "Loop",
I see it the same way you see "{" or "}".

--
Jonathan Allen



"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
message news:3c0d8b7e@147.208.176.211...
>
> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0c3106@147.208.176.211...
> > > The extra specifiers add up. Not to mention the rest of the language
is
> > also
> > > quite terse.
> >
> > That depends on how you measure the length of the line.
>
> Hey?
>
> > If you count tokens
> > instead of characters, VB is often shorter than C#.
>
> If you count semicolons only, you'll find that VB lines are always shorter
> than C# lines. But what does that prove?
>
> Kunle
>
>

[Michael Welch]

Ooops, sorry about that "djdjdj dkskdsk" nonsense.

Michael

"djdjdj dkskdsk" <not@valid.com> wrote in message
news:3c0eb81c@147.208.176.211...
> Jonathan,
>
> > Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the
> event
> > code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the
event
> > name.
> >
>
> Is there an IDE shortcut for getting the signature of methods you want to
> override?
>
> Michael
>
>

[Jonathan Allen]

> Is there an IDE shortcut for getting the signature of methods you want to
> override?

I wish I could tell you, but I just lost both of my .Net machines. I cannot
play with it again until it is released (so I can put it on my production
machine) or my boss is done with my spares.

--
Jonathan Allen



"djdjdj dkskdsk" <not@valid.com> wrote in message
news:3c0eb81c@147.208.176.211...
> Jonathan,
>
> > Anyways, you should be able to use the property window to generate the
> event
> > code. If I remember correctly, you just have to double-click on the
event
> > name.
> >
>
> Is there an IDE shortcut for getting the signature of methods you want to
> override?
>
> Michael
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:24:09 -0800, "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com>
wrote:

>It proves that C# uses to many semi-colons.

Whatever, so use vb.net. I really don't think anyone cares.



--
When freedom is outlawed
only outlaws will be free.