Function within method (Simple question?)

[Håkan Johansson]

Coming from Delphi, I've tried to declare a function within a method, but
can't get the compiler to "swollow it". Is it at all possible?

That is:

SomeMethod()
{

LocalFunction()
{
//Statements;
}

LocalFunction() ;
//Statements;
LocalFunction() ;
}

Thank you!

Regards Håkan Johansson

[Brian Gideon]

Håkan,

Are you using C# 2.0? If so then the following would compile.

void SomeMethod()
{
ThreadStart method = delegate()
{
// Statements
}

method.DynamicI nvoke(null);
// Statements
method.DynamicI nvoke(null);
}

Brian

Håkan Johansson wrote:

Coming from Delphi, I've tried to declare a function within a method, but
can't get the compiler to "swollow it". Is it at all possible?

That is:

SomeMethod()
{

LocalFunction()
{
//Statements;
}

LocalFunction() ;
//Statements;
LocalFunction() ;
}

Thank you!

Regards Håkan Johansson

[Brian Gideon]

Mark R. Dawson wrote:

Hi Håkan,
in C# you cannot declare a method inside another method.

Mark,

You can in 2.0. You just can't name them. That's why they're called
anonymous methods :)

Brian

[Dustin Campbell]

Are you using C# 2.0? If so then the following would compile.

>
void SomeMethod()
{
ThreadStart method = delegate()
{
// Statements
}
method.DynamicI nvoke(null);
// Statements
method.DynamicI nvoke(null);
}

Why use DynamicInvoke? This is fine:

void SomeMethod()
{
String.Threadin g.ThreadStart localFunction = delegate
{
// Statements
}

localFunction() ;
localFunction() ;
}

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Håkan Johansson <ha*********@no spamhallde.sewr ote:

Coming from Delphi, I've tried to declare a function within a method, but
can't get the compiler to "swollow it". Is it at all possible?

As others have said, the only similar thing is anonymous methods. See
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/c...delegates.html

However, unless I needed delegate behaviour, I'd normally just create
another private method... any reason you want to create it within the
method?

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

[Brian Gideon]

Dustin Campbell wrote:

Why use DynamicInvoke? This is fine:

void SomeMethod()
{
String.Threadin g.ThreadStart localFunction = delegate
{
// Statements
}

localFunction() ;
localFunction() ;
}

Because it is was an order of magnitude more complicated than your
suggestion. Clearly, any self respecting programmer would use my
suggestion, if for nothing else, because it portrays a sense of
superiority and a command of the .NET Framework. :)

[Barry Kelly]

Jon Skeet wrote:

Håkan Johansson <ha*********@no spamhallde.sewr ote:

Coming from Delphi, I've tried to declare a function within a method, but
can't get the compiler to "swollow it". Is it at all possible?

As others have said, the only similar thing is anonymous methods. See
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/c...delegates.html

However, unless I needed delegate behaviour, I'd normally just create
another private method... any reason you want to create it within the
method?

One reason can be so it can access locals declared in the scope of the
enclosing method. Anonymous delegates have this behaviour too - via
closure / capturing.

-- Barry

--
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/

[Dustin Campbell]

>Why use DynamicInvoke? This is fine:

>>
void SomeMethod()
{
String.Threadi ng.ThreadStart localFunction = delegate
{
// Statements
}
localFunction( );
localFunction( );
}

Because it is was an order of magnitude more complicated than your
suggestion. Clearly, any self respecting programmer would use my
suggestion, if for nothing else, because it portrays a sense of
superiority and a command of the .NET Framework. :)

ROFL

Best Regards,
Dustin Campbell
Developer Express Inc.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Barry Kelly <ba***********@ gmail.comwrote:

However, unless I needed delegate behaviour, I'd normally just create
another private method... any reason you want to create it within the
method?

One reason can be so it can access locals declared in the scope of the
enclosing method. Anonymous delegates have this behaviour too - via
closure / capturing.

True, true. Unless I actually needed to pass a delegate somewhere (or
call BeginInvoke or something) I would usually make that state explicit
somewhere.

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

[William Stacey [C# MVP]]

IIRC, it is another method is *another class with an unknown name. Not that
it matters, but it is a bit more then sugar imo.

--
William Stacey [C# MVP]

"Mark R. Dawson" <Ma*********@di scussions.micro soft.comwrote in message
news:80******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
| :-) I guess you can use anonymous methods, good call, but it is syntactic
| sugar for really creating another method in the class.
|
| Mark.
| --
| http://www.markdawson.org
| http://themightycoder.spaces.live.com
|
|
| "Brian Gideon" wrote:
|
| Mark R. Dawson wrote:
| Hi Håkan,
| in C# you cannot declare a method inside another method.
|
| >
| Mark,
| >
| You can in 2.0. You just can't name them. That's why they're called
| anonymous methods :)
| >
| Brian
| >
| >