Literals and strings - make it stop!!

This is probably a stupid question. I'm new to C#, and I am having a string
problem.

I am storing strings in an XML file. Example, a connection string:

DataSource="servername/sqlservername";InitialCatalog="nameofdatabase";
IntegratedSecurity=true;

When I load this from the XML file, and look at it in the debugger, it
displays as shown above.

When I do a Debug.Print of this from the generic list into which it is
loaded, it displays it as shown above.

When I put it in a textbox or a string variable, it puts \ before each
quote mark. So it shows it like this:

DataSource=\"servername/sqlservername\";InitialCatalog=\"nameofdatabase\";
IntegratedSecurity=\"true\";

How do I get it to stop doing that? Do I have to parse it out?

Thanks in advance,

Robin S.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Ok, thanks to Jon and his blog, and Google. Apparently there's a difference
between Debug.Print and MessageBox, and Debug.Print shows the frickin'
literals but they aren't really in the field.

So. Never mind. :-)

Robin S.
-------------------------------
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:UomdnRB3_7dls5bbnZ2dnUVZ_oernZ2d@comcast.com. ..

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

When I put it in a textbox or a string variable, it puts \ before eachAre you looking at properties in the debugger, or in final output
(i.e. no the client screen *in* the textbox). This sounds like it is
just the explicit c# string escaping - exactly the same as @"I'm some
"" string with "" single quotes in"; there *is* no @ in the string.
The Debug.WriteLine and final output is what matters.

Marc

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:NOKdnQWItOf_ppbbnZ2dnUVZ_qiqnZ2d@comcast.com. ..Way to go figuring it out. Many people post a question and just wait for an
answer.

Most the answers are out there - if you go looking.

BTW - please don't top post :)

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Thanks, Luc. I always keep looking. I don't have time to sit still

BTW, lots of people top post, you may have to just accept it.

Robin S.
---------------------------------
"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.eduwrote in message
news:0rqrd4-0g6.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Yes, you're right, as I posted my own error. It's definitely an interesting
conundrum.

Thanks,
Robin S.
-------------------------
"Marc Gravell" <marc.gravell@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1175141357.570002.247120@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

[top posting fixed]
RobinS wrote:For most every undesirable thing, there are many people that do it. Are
we to accept all undesirable behaviour without complaint? I think not.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

--
Larry Lard
larrylard@googlemail.com
The address is real, but unread - please reply to the group
For VB and C# questions - tell us which version

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:daudnSItjqtRB5HbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com. ..Nah . . . I can plonk them all ;) Or if the NG is truly lost - I guess I
could leave.

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Bummer for you guys. I find flexibility to be a good trait to have.

Robin S.
---------------------------
"Larry Lard" <larrylard@googlemail.comwrote in message
news:574n10F2bkmqmU1@mid.individual.net...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

It would be a shame to let something so small have control over you. ;-)

Robin S.
-------------------
"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.eduwrote in message
news:9givd4-i8k.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Ob2dnQ9gq6Nv2pLbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@comcast.com. ..You mean like people that get fired for using profanity at work?

Manners are ~so~ incredibly subjective - but deliberately being rude is not.

There are crusaders in the world that stand up for things they think are
right. But I would classify you as being too lazy to post properly.

Such a petty thing to make a battle out of . . . Are you that bored?

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

RobinS <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:So be flexible - post "inline" (with appropriate snipping) in groups
where people tend to do so or where that's an expressed preference (as
it is here - I don't remember anyone complaining because of people
posting inline with appropriate snipping), and top post in groups where
that's the norm.

For what it's worth, I believe there's a fundamental problem with top-
posting beyond the fact that you have to read the conversation
backwards - it simply doesn't work when you're responding to more than
one point. Either you have to keep explaining which bit you're
responding to, or you leave it ambiguous, or you *have* to go back to
posting inline.

I also suspect that top-posting would never have become popular if
Outlook Express didn't do it by default.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:53:38 -0700, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <skeet@pobox.com>
wrote:
For what it's worth, Mac Mail and Opera (two messaging applications I use
on a regular basis) both open new messages with top-posting as well.

If it's Outlook Express's "fault" that everyone top-posts, it's not
because other applications are better. It's just because the other
applications don't have the market share Outlook Express has.

Personally, I think it's a bit unfair to blame the application, given that
it's so trivially easy to NOT top-post even using a program like Outlook
Express. The real reason top-posting has become so popular is that people
in general are lazy and stubborn. You can't enforce good manners and
clear, efficient communication through software.

Fact is, top-posting isn't nearly as big a problem as failing to trim the
quotes. I'd like to see a messaging application that starts a message as
Outlook Express (ie "top posting"), but then tosses out everything below
whatever the user has typed. Sort of an "opt-in" for quoting.

But even that isn't assured of fixing the problem. As long as human
beings are involved, and as long as messaging applications include quoted
text in the message, most people (being lazy and stubborn) are going to
just type their message and hit "send" without going to any additional
trouble to clean up the post.

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@nnowslpianmk.comwrote:Is it not possible that they've copied OE's behaviour now that OE has
made it popular though?
People are lazy, so they'll type wherever the cursor starts. If the
cursor started at the bottom, top-posting wouldn't be a problem.
However:
Agreed - and that would be the problem if everything just started at
the bottom.
Then there's be no context at all, which would be worse, if anything.

I used to use "trn" which (IIRC) used to warn you if more than a
certain proportion of your post was quoting text rather than writing
new text. That was a pretty good reminder, IMO.
True - unless you make it somehow harder to *not* clean up than to
clean up. I'm not saying I've got the answer (beyond warning dialogs
that at least explain that you're being vaguely anti-social), but I
still blame OE as the start of the problem :)

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:19:01 -0700, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <skeet@pobox.com>
wrote:
I can only conclude you aren't very familiar with the Mac community. :)
The idea that anything on the Mac is the way it is out of deference to
some preexisting design on Windows is anathema to them. Opera doesn't
inspire quite the same zealotry, but it similarly is not something anyone
would confuse with something inspired by Outlook Express.

No. I don't think that other software has copied OE's behavior, not
intentionally.
Yes. Unless the newsreader also implemented:
There's not really any context now. A person top-posting, quoting the
entire text of the previous message has provided me with zero additional
information. That text is already in my newsreader and I can go see it at
the push of a button. In the extremely rare case when a follow-up shows
up before the replied-to post, I can either wait or go to Google and see
the post (I haven't seen this situation in years).
Yes. I don't really understand why the shift from what was essentially a
text UI to a GUI resulted in this loss of applications that encourage
friendly behavior. "trn" wasn't the only text-based newsreader that did
that, and it was a good idea. There's no reason GUI newsreaders can't do
something similar (and in fact, I've heard that 40tude is better about
guiding the user...haven't checked to see for myself though).
Well, blame OE all you want. GUI messaging applications have had this bad
behavior long before OE ever existed, and OE is far from being alone in
this sort of behavior. IMHO, you're pointing the finger at the wrong
entity (or at least failing to acknowledge the collective blame shared by
OE and all similar applications).

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

I don't agree with you about the top posting versus bottom posting. I don't
agree that that makes me rude, just because I am standing up for what *I*
think is right.

Robin S.
----------------------------
"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.eduwrote in message
news:mj24e4-pmt.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:34:40 -0700, RobinS <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
What makes it right? Several posts have already detailed what it is about
inline quoting rather than top-posting that provides for a superior result.

Since you think that top-posting is right, surely you have a solid
explanation for how it's better than quoting inline. So far, all you've
done is demonstrate clearly how top-posting provides no additional value
beyond simply posting without quoting at all. That's not really
supporting your position very well.

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Frankly, it's just an opinion. This discussion is right up there with "do
you put your curly brace at the end of the line or at the beginning of the
next one." I don't have a need to argue my position on either topic.

Robin S.
--------------------------
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@nnowslpianmk.comwrote in message
news:op.tp49awaz8jd0ej@petes-computer.local...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:58:12 -0700, RobinS <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote:
People with opinions base those opinions on some logical analysis of the
situation. Analyses differ and thus so do opinions. But if you think you
have an opinion but cannot actually state the reason behind that opinion,
then you don't have an opinion at all. You have a religion, and not a
very good one at that.

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 1, 11:01 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com>
wrote:

<snip>
Let me put it another way - *if* OE mad top-posting popular, it
wouldn't be surprising for other applications to make that "the
default way" even if it's not specifically to mimic OE's behaviour.
I'm quite happy to accept the idea that I may be way off on blaming OE
though.

<snip>
Unfortunately, with the newsreader I use (Gravity, which is excellent
in many other ways), if I've already read an article, it's a *bit* of
a pain to get back to it from an unread one (it's a matter of changing
filters etc). I do see your point though - and of course a newsreader
where that wasn't a problem would make it a non-issue. It can be handy
to see the text on the same page, as it were - but that's only useful
if both pieces of text are short.
Sounds like I should try 40tude. One thing which amazes me about GUI
newsreaders is that most of them - MacSOUP being an exception IIRC -
do a far worse job of drawing thread trees than trn did. It was very
good for navigating around replies.
Possibly, possibly. Either way, its a pity...

Jon

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:Why not both? Top post inline. ;)

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 2, 2:50 am, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com>
wrote:This whole debate is about opinion, so there's no right or wrong
answer. Those 'superior results' are also a matter of opinion.
Inline posting can sometimes be very confusing if its not done right.
You can also miss responses if they are short and between two longer
quoted sections.
Sure, I know a reason top posting is better; those already familiar
with the topic need not scroll at all to find the newest (and most
interesting / relevant) content. Those not familiar can simply scroll
down to the last point they were involved and pick up from there. Its
no more difficult to scroll up than it is down.

No, its not any easier to read bottom to top than top to bottom; other
cultures do exactly that, even reading right to left. Those that
complain about this 'issue' are simply stubborn and lazy, and would
rather waste everyone's time and resources debating this issue than
actually providing useful content. Somehow I manage to deal with all
three posting types, and it doesn't slow me down. Anyone can adapt to
read all three types, but from some reason there's a small few that
believe bottom posting is The One True Way. Get over it already, and
stop wasting everyones time with asinine opinions.

RobinS is right; this is just as useful as the debate as to where
curly braces should go.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:59:14 -0700, Andy <andyj@med-associates.comwrote:
The problem is that top-posting implies quoting the previous post. If the
reply does not inline replies with the quote, then the quote is completely
pointless. It's simply an exact copy of the text that can easily be found
in the previous post, and adds nothing whatsoever to the value of the post
in which the quoted text appears.
Those not familiar with the thread can simply navigate to the previous
messages in the thread. Untrimmed quotes attached to the end of a message
are just a waste of bandwidth and disk space.

Furthermore, your claim is a bit disingenuous given that it's not as
simple a matter as whether one reads from top to bottom or bottom to top.
Without inlining the quotes, there's no point of reference to understand
how various parts of the quoted text apply, if at all, to the newly posted
text.
Again, disingenous claim. Yes, other cultures read in other directions.
And for them, writing the text opposite to the direction they normally
read is just as difficult as it is for us to read in a different direction
than top to bottom, left to right.
Well, that's constructive. Fact is, your attempt to defend top-posting
has failed miserably, and the best you can come up with is name-calling.

Bravo.

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:mOqdnVc4QpIUNI3bnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com. ..You're coming in to an established group and refusing to follow the rules.
That is what is rude. It wasn't rude that you didn't know - it was rude
that you refuse to comply.

My first post to Usenet was a top post as well - but I wasn't nearly as pig
headed ;)

And BTW - If you got a job and refused to follow their coding convention on
curly braces that would be a source of contention as well ;)

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Andy <andyj@med-associates.comwrote:When a post is snipped appropriately, there should very, very rarely be
a whole pageful of quoted text before the first piece of unquoted (new)
text anyway. Did you have to scroll to read this?
Yes, and I dare say they're used to that, if it's what they do all the
time. I don't know of any cultures using English (the dominant language
used on this newsgroup) who write either right to left or top to
bottom.

If someone asked me the time, should I reply with an octal
representation, just because it's theoretically just as useful? No - we
are conditioned by culture, and it's easier to go with the flow.

Can you *honestly* say that if I had written this post with each line
written right to left, you'd have been able to read it just as easily?
How do you get round the problem that you can't clearly reply to
individual points with top-posting?

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 2, 12:46 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com>
wrote:No, it is of value. Not having the original text at all is of no
value. You assume that the thread in the newsreader never gets
broken. That's far from the truth. I've seen plenty of posts where
there is a reply, but its showing as a totally new thread. Without
the original text, the reply isn't of any value.
Again, you're assumptions are wrong. If you really want to argue this
point, then we should never be quoting, because the original text is
always available. Top or bottom posting is simply a waste of
bandwidth and space, because we can always find the previous message
in the thread.
Somehow we managed before computers to be able to do this. For some
reason this is even more common in email; if the response is long
delayed, we can still figure out what points the reply was referring
to because we have the original someone (typically at the bottom, as
I've seen most email clients do).
Bull. Many people learn to read and write in languages which are
opposites in terms of left to right. Given how frequent top posting
appears, you'd think that people would be able to adapt and deal with
any of the three methods by now. Especially in groups where the
participants you would expect to be a little above average.
You think its failed miserably, quite expectedly, because you want to
force everyone to your method and nothing will ever change your mind
about it. You're not here for a debate, you're here to move everyone
to your 'standard.' Sorry if you feel its name calling, but I feel
I'm calling this thread out for what this is; a pointless, asinine
argument. Can we get back to discussing C# now?

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 1, 8:54 pm, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamlicious_z_XX...@cc.usu.eduwrote:Honestly, I'd think the company was not focusing on what really is
important. Coding standards are good, but when they get that
detailed, you have to wonder if the company has its priorities
straight. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with such a company.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <s...@pobox.comwrote:Just as not everyone follows the 'rules', not all posts are snipped
properly. No, I did not have to scroll on my 1600 x 1200 pixel
screen..
My point is that you can learn.
Given the number of top posts I see, I'm not sure you can call bottom
posting the culture norm. Lots of places use Outlook, and I don't
hear of anyone having problems following an email discussion because
the older replies are at the bottom.
Writing right to left is not as prevalent on English newsgroups as the
various styles of posting. If it was, yes I'm sure I could, just as I
can pretty easily follow a thread, regardless of whether the quotes
are top, bottom or inline (provided each post is consistent with
itself).
What stops you from doing so? You make your points in paragraphs,
just like you would in any other written medium. Each paragraph
should address only one point.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:53:23 -0700, Andy <andyj@med-associates.comwrote:
That situation occurs FAR too rarely to be used as a justification for
duplicating over and over the complete text of every single post in a
thread to which a reply is made. You are claiming that because once in a
very infrequent while a post winds up out of order, we should use up some
large multiple of the nominal bandwidth required (five to ten times as
much if you look at the overhead that quoting by top-posters results in).
But that's the point. Inline quoting provides MUCH more than just a
complete copy of the previous post. It provides detailed context for
individual comments.

ALL that top-posters do is provide a complete copy. Pure bottom-posting
(when someone simply appends their reply to a complete copy of the
previous post) is a waste too and is just as bad, in a different way, than
top-posting. Neither top-posting nor bottom-posting makes any sense and
you're right, we shouldn't do that.

Only inline quoting makes any sense.
Well, I don't know how you handled your correspondence before computers,
but before there was email and I wrote letters to people in which I
replied to something they had written to me, I made a specific reference
to what they wrote. Whether paraphrasing or quoting exactly, I did in
handwritten or typed correspondence basically the same thing I do with a
computer.

So you're right...somehow we managed before computers to be able to do
this. And we did it in the same way that polite, thoughtful people do it
with computers. We interspersed the text we wrote with quotes from the
previous message providing reference to the points we made.
Given a need, a human being can learn just about anything. Da Vinci wrote
in mirror image text, and I don't doubt that with some effort I could
learn to easily read mirror image text. But that doesn't mean that it's
just as easy for the average untrained person to read mirror image text.
It just means humans are adaptable.
No one is saying that people can't adapt. Again, you are being
disingenuous...your straw man has no bearing on the issue.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I would prefer that people
would actually take a moment to rationally consider the advantages and
disadvantages of different methods of posting. If they would do that,
they would immediately see the truth. Unfortunately, the people who like
top-posting aren't interested in doing that.
I've been discussing C# all along. That's the beautiful thing about
newsgroups...a person can participate in more than one thread at a time.

If you personally would prefer to stop discussing this "pointless, asinine
argument", well...I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head. All you
have to do is stop responding to the thread, and you're done. Easy as
pie. It's not your place to tell others when THEY are done though. So
stop trying to do so.

Pete

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Andy <andyj@med-associates.comwrote:I suspect very people would have had to though, given that it started
after only 13 lines. I doubt that many people read news with only 13
lines visible.
And my point is that there ought to be a really good reason to do so.
Why learn to go against cultural norms just for the sake of it?
The context was that of reading from top to bottom in general, which
*is* the cultural norm in English. Top-posting goes against that norm.
I've seen plenty of times where email has become confusing precisely
because people aren't clear what they're replying to due to top-
posting, however. It's fine for dashing off a quick reply, but anything
significant really requires a bit more clarity, IME.
While top-posting is certainly prevalent in many newsgroups, in
technical newsgroups it tends not to be, in my experience. In
particular, whenever there's an in-depth discussion which requires
replying to many different points, posting inline is just about the
only way to go.
And you'd put that paragraph *above* the paragraph it's replying to?
Can't say I've ever seen anyone do it, and I'm pretty sure it would
confuse everyone for no purpose at all. (At that point I'm not sure it
would count as "top-posting" in the first place, to be honest.)

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Andy <andyj@med-associates.comwrote:Working with a mixture of bracing styles in the same code base is very
distracting, in my experience. It's not *too* bad so long as each file
is consistent in itself, but when you've got different methods doing
different things (or even different styles *within* a method) it gets
in the way of readability - and that's always a bad thing, IMO, even if
the effect is only fairly slight.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Just to clarify my stance here, I don't have a problem with however anybody
wants to do their posting.

I think inline posting frequently makes sense, when you have multiple
points to make, or to respond to, in the previous posting. I do that when
applicable.

When you only have one thing to say (like a block of code to post, or a
couple of lines in response), I like top posting because I've already read
the other threads. If stuff is bottom posted, I have to open it and scroll
to the bottom every time I want to read an new post in the thread. Scroll
through the same stuff over and over in subsequent responses. If it is
top-posted, I can read it without changing windows in my newsreader and
scrolling to the bottom.

And by the way, I put my curly braces on the next line. Unless my employer
tells me otherwise. Then I put them on the end of the line, even though I
don't like it.

Robin S.
-------------------------------------------
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MPG.207b5e9e62ff3e0b98da6f@msnews.microsoft.c om...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:Ea-dndqnJcjtF4zbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...*snip reason for top posting*

It works for you. It even works for me. Because, right now I'm only
watching 1-2 threads.

The people who view hundreds of threads should have to scroll down and then
back up to figure out what you are talking about so that you don't need to
push Ctrl End before writing a message (or whatever you need to do.) Thanks
for helping me see the light.

It has always been the helpful people vs the trolls. But that is what God
invented killfiles for.

Take care

**plonk**

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 1, 5:54 pm, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamlicious_z_XX...@cc.usu.eduwrote:OK... as you're a relative newcomer to THIS group, let me outline the
rules HERE. Lots of people here top-post. Others bottom-post. Others
post in-line. What matters here is content: being as helpful as
possible, and STICKING TO THE TOPIC.

If I've found any rule here about top-posting in this group, it has to
be KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I couldn't care less about your preferred
posting style. Neither could most people here.

What I DO care about is hijacking a perfectly good discussion on
string literals with endless off-topic posts about top-posting. Far
from enforcing good netiquette, you've just violated it.

If it really matters so much to you, then start a separate topic on
posting style, and we can debate it there. Please, please avoid
derailing otherwise useful discussion with this top-posting blather.
Most of us couldn't care less.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"Bruce Wood" <brucewood@canada.comwrote in message
news:1175578854.712297.131830@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...Very well :)

--
LTP

:)

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Mar 29, 6:13 am, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamlicious_z_XX...@cc.usu.eduwrote:That is almost as bad as not laughing at your own jokes...
IF I don't laugh at them
THEN who will?

;-D

/Per

--

..NET Optimization: http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Personally, I prefer to eat my boiled eggs from the middle.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP

Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries:
http://www.miradyne.net

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Hey

I m not generally dense but this post is beyond my understanding. What
exactly is everyone discussing abt?

with regards,


J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
jvravichandran
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
at http://www.Google.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

On Apr 3, 1:40 am, "Bruce Wood" <brucew...@canada.comwrote:Finally, another sensible poster.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Ravichandran J.V. wrote:The thread has gone badly off topic. Luc made the small mistake of
mentioning posting style, and it went down hill from there...

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"Göran Andersson" <guffa@guffa.comwrote in message
news:%23wAgXhfdHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...I agree - although I have to admit that I am accustomed to the vast majority
being behind me on that one :) I really wasn't trying to make a big deal
out of it.

But it would appear, albeit painfully, I am familiarizing myself with
microsoft.public.* culture.

--
LTP

Yes, my continence fell . . . does that comfort you?

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

I which more companies would push coding standards up higher on
the list. When I have to pull out code 2+ years old that the original
developer is no longer available to speak with, if they followed a
standard set of coding practices then my job is that much easier.

"Andy" <andyj@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:1175543694.781254.69930@p77g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

There is one other alternative to top-posting, inline posting, and
bottom-posting: Don't quote at all. That's the way people have been writing
messages for hundreds of years.

///ark

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

There is one other alternative to top-posting, inline posting, andAnd here is another "interresting" style that I just spotted in a
thread: top-posting with inlined duplicated quoute.

;)


Mark Wilden wrote:
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

"Bruce Wood" <brucewood@canada.comwrote in message
news:1175578854.712297.131830@p15g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...Thanks, Bruce. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Robin S.

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

pssst...what does *top-post* mean?

with regards,


J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
jvravichandran
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
at http://www.Google.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

Hey,

I did understand one post on profanity and I think it is time for me to
branch off into a tangent on this post as well (not out of spite but
just for fun:)).

Profanity is a byword back here in Indian companies (not all companies,
of course). It slips out like a springbok out of the reach of a
cheetah(poetic, don't you think?!).

When you are subject to a nut, who hurls profanities in the air thinking
that he is being exactly what an *extroverted* marketing manager (simply
because that other guy was successful being a profane mouthed
vice-president!!) should be, you tend to lose control and let the guy
have it in the same vein. Subjectivity and rudeness are as distant in
one's minds as the horizon when faced with such nuts!

Reminds me of the "Catch-22", Joseph Heller's novel, which features a
guy (let's call the guy Yo) trying to imitate a man in a hospital to
escape flying into the war again. So, Yo does everything to stay in the
hospital by imitating all the symptoms that the other patient shows
until the patient dies and Yo promptly switches out of it!

Yo, man, what a post!:) Literals and strings - make it stop !! Still
have not been able to understand anything out of the post!


with regards,


J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
jvravichandran
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
at http://www.Google.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

dude take your raghead and go shoot some pakistanis

don't you have some cowshit to shovel or something
or is that sacred to you




On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Ravichandran J.V. <jvravichand...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

your curly braces are laughable

your stupid fucking language was never invented

go and play in the freeway, nigger lover


C# SHIT

what a fucking idiot


SERIOUSLY dude
did using the trendy programming language of the month contribute to
your companies bottom line?


On Apr 2, 2:16 pm, Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <s...@pobox.comwrote:

re: Literals and strings - make it stop!!

this:
No, it is of value. Not having the original text at all is of no
value. You assume that the thread in the newsreader never gets
broken. That's far from the truth. I've seen plenty of posts where
there is a reply, but its showing as a totally new thread. Without
the original text, the reply isn't of any value.


IS BECAUSE MICROSOFT CENSORS CERTAIN AUTHORS






On Apr 2, 12:53 pm, "Andy" <a...@med-associates.comwrote: