What does this do? Object[0]

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

Object MyOnject = new Object[0];

What does the [0] signify?
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com

[Joe Mayo [MVP C#]]

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org > wrote in message
news:Xn******** **********@127. 0.0.1...

Object MyOnject = new Object[0];

What does the [0] signify?

Hi Chad,

It means you instantiated an array of type object with a Length of zero.

Joe
--
http://www.csharp-station.com

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

"Joe Mayo [MVP C#]" <jm***@nospamAt CSharpDashStati on.com> wrote in
news:u8******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl:

What does the [0] signify?

It means you instantiated an array of type object with a Length of zero.

Aah. That makes sense. I guess the placement and the fact that I was looking
for a constructor in its place threw me.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

"Joe Mayo [MVP C#]" <jm***@nospamAt CSharpDashStati on.com> wrote in message
news:u8******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org > wrote in message
news:Xn******** **********@127. 0.0.1...

Object MyOnject = new Object[0];

What does the [0] signify?
Hi Chad,

It means you instantiated an array of type object with a Length of zero.

Which, because it isn't immediately obvious, works because an array of
object(object[]) is still derived from object and will assign without
complaint. Joe
--
http://www.csharp-station.com

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] <[e-mail]> wrote:

Which, because it isn't immediately obvious, works because an array of
object(object[]) is still derived from object and will assign without
complaint.

Indeed. If I saw a line of code like that in production source, I'd
definitely be suspicious - there'd have to be a good reason for the
variable not to be declared as object[] instead of object.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] <[e-mail]> wrote:

Which, because it isn't immediately obvious, works because an array of
object(object[]) is still derived from object and will assign without
complaint.
Indeed. If I saw a line of code like that in production source, I'd
definitely be suspicious - there'd have to be a good reason for the
variable not to be declared as object[] instead of object.

As would I, the only use I could think of would be future proofing against
arrays == overload, and that is still a horrid construct.
object[] o = new object[0];

if (((object)o) == ((object)<whate ver>))

seems far better to me.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com:

Indeed. If I saw a line of code like that in production source, I'd
definitely be suspicious - there'd have to be a good reason for the
variable not to be declared as object[] instead of object.

Well I found it in MSDN in, in sample code. :)

I changed it to Object() anyways. It was only being used for a Monitor and
nothing else.

I suspet they were trying to save a few bytes, but it just doesnt seem a
clean approach. Some prior C developer probably.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org > wrote in message
news:Xn******** **********@127. 0.0.1...

Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com:

Indeed. If I saw a line of code like that in production source, I'd
definitely be suspicious - there'd have to be a good reason for the
variable not to be declared as object[] instead of object.
Well I found it in MSDN in, in sample code. :)

Which sample was it? Something is very odd about that...
I changed it to Object() anyways. It was only being used for a Monitor and
nothing else.

I suspet they were trying to save a few bytes, but it just doesnt seem a
clean approach. Some prior C developer probably.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com

[Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu]

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]> wrote in
news:ua******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl:

Which sample was it? Something is very odd about that...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l=/library/en-
us/cpguide/html/cpconASynchrono usFileIO.asp

public static Object NumImagesMutex = new Object[0];

This line also looks suspicious:

fs.BeginRead(st ate.pixels, 0, numPixels, readImageCallba ck,
state);

Is it my imagination or is the call back not being referenced correctly? Such
has never compiled in my code...
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org > wrote in message
news:Xn******** **********@127. 0.0.1...

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]> wrote in
news:ua******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl:

Which sample was it? Something is very odd about that...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l=/library/en-
us/cpguide/html/cpconASynchrono usFileIO.asp

public static Object NumImagesMutex = new Object[0];

This is really strange, unless there is(was) a bug in object itself that I'm
not aware of this is a strange construct. An array of type object, even with
no members probably takes up more memory space than an empty object. I
really wonder what the point was...

This line also looks suspicious:

fs.BeginRead(st ate.pixels, 0, numPixels, readImageCallba ck,
state);

Is it my imagination or is the call back not being referenced correctly? Such has never compiled in my code...
The callback is ok, although the ease of reading of this code sucks(for
non-colored code I like a little space inbetween comments and code), there
is a variable near the top of the method defined as:
AsyncCallback readImageCallba ck = new
AsyncCallback(R eadInImageCallb ack);

which is perfectly ok, a delegate is just an object afterall.

--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programmin g is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com