C# equivelent of VBA "with..end with" statement

[Mike N.]

Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

Set myControl = CommandBars(Pop UpToUse).Contro ls.Add(msoContr olButton,
before:=5)
With myControl
.BeginGroup = True
.Caption = "Insert Row(s)"
.OnAction = "InsertRows "
.FaceId = 295
End With
Thanks

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mike N. <mi************ *@gmail.comwrot e:

Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

No, there isn't. C# 3 has object initializers so that when you call a
constructor (and only at that time) you can set a bunch of properties,
like this:

Button button = new Button { Text = "Hi", Size = ... };

Likewise there are collection initializers:

List<stringstri ngs = new List<string{ "Hi", "There" };

But no With statement.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
Web site: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
C# in Depth: http://csharpindepth.com

[Peter Duniho]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:16:34 -0700, Mike N. <mi************ *@gmail.com>
wrote:

Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

There is none.

If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

Pete

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:16:34 -0700, Mike N. <mi************ *@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

There is none.

If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

But it is rather interesting that it is usually those that use languages
that does not have WITH (C++, Java, C#) that think it is a problem.
Those that actually have used it (in VB or Pascal) does not see
that problem as a real problem.

Arne

[Bruce C. Baker]

"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:48******** *************** @news.sunsite.d k...

Peter Duniho wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:16:34 -0700, Mike N. <mi************ *@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

There is none.

If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

But it is rather interesting that it is usually those that use languages
that does not have WITH (C++, Java, C#) that think it is a problem.
Those that actually have used it (in VB or Pascal) does not see
that problem as a real problem.

Arne

BUT note that Wirth chose /not/ to include "with" in Pascal's descendants!

[Tom Dacon]

Whenever the religious wars flare up around languages, the C# people are
always dissing VB (I notice that it never seems to go the other way) but in
fact the VB people have given us some quite useful capabilities that the C#
people haven't seen fit to offer us. The With statement is one, better
support for late binding is another (particularly important when you're
talking to certain Win32 PIA assemblies like the Office libraries), simple
IDE setup for event handlers is yet another, and I just happen to notice, by
the way, that if you're going to do programming in Sql Server 2005
Integration Services VB is the only option you have. They intended to do C#,
or so they say, but never actually got around to it.

As you can probably see, I use both languages quite happily, and I'm not
interested in responding to flames.

Have a nice day,
Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:48******** *************** @news.sunsite.d k...

Peter Duniho wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:16:34 -0700, Mike N. <mi************ *@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>Can someone tell me if there is a C# equivelent to the VBA 'with'
statement that works like this:

There is none.

If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

But it is rather interesting that it is usually those that use languages
that does not have WITH (C++, Java, C#) that think it is a problem.
Those that actually have used it (in VB or Pascal) does not see
that problem as a real problem.

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:37:21 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.d kwrote:

>If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

But it is rather interesting that it is usually those that use languages
that does not have WITH (C++, Java, C#) that think it is a problem.

I've never asked those who say they'd prefer not to have "With" what other
languages they use.

Those that actually have used it (in VB or Pascal) does not see
that problem as a real problem.

You've surveyed everyone? It never occurred to me you'd have that much
extra time on your hands.

In any case, I have used "With" myself in VB code, and it's fine as far as
it goes. It obviously didn't get put in the language just for looks; it's
useful in certain scenarios. But like some other aspects of VB, it
introduces some semantic ambiguity that can in fact be a maintenance issue.

Does that make it bad? No. Has anyone posted any "flames" on the issue?
No, not that I've seen. I have no idea what Tom's on about. But it's
also true that we get by just find in C# without it, and given the general
philosophy of C# to not provide language features that introduce
ambiguities, it's not hard to understand why it was left out. Even if
it's not a significant liability in VB.

Pete

[Michael D. Ober]

"Peter Duniho" <Np*********@nn owslpianmk.comw rote in message
news:op******** *******@petes-computer.local. ..

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:37:21 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.d kwrote:

>>If it makes you feel better, when this has come up in the past, others
have pointed out why the VBA "With" statement can lead to maintenance
problems, especially when they are nested. :)

But it is rather interesting that it is usually those that use languages
that does not have WITH (C++, Java, C#) that think it is a problem.

I've never asked those who say they'd prefer not to have "With" what other
languages they use.

>Those that actually have used it (in VB or Pascal) does not see
that problem as a real problem.

You've surveyed everyone? It never occurred to me you'd have that much
extra time on your hands.

In any case, I have used "With" myself in VB code, and it's fine as far as
it goes. It obviously didn't get put in the language just for looks; it's
useful in certain scenarios. But like some other aspects of VB, it
introduces some semantic ambiguity that can in fact be a maintenance
issue.

Does that make it bad? No. Has anyone posted any "flames" on the issue?
No, not that I've seen. I have no idea what Tom's on about. But it's
also true that we get by just find in C# without it, and given the general
philosophy of C# to not provide language features that introduce
ambiguities, it's not hard to understand why it was left out. Even if
it's not a significant liability in VB.

Pete

Pete, whenever the issue of "With .. End With" comes up, a language religion
war starts. The reality is that the "With ... End With" construct is a hold
over from VB6, where proper use could actually improve performance. I don't
know if the same is true in VB.Net (any version), but the language construct
is still there and still useful in certain situations. As far as being
ambiguous, just don't use nested With ... End With statements and you avoid
ambiguity.

Mike Ober.

[Peter Duniho]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:32:33 -0700, Michael D. Ober
<obermd.@.alum. mit.edu.nospam. wrote:

Pete, whenever the issue of "With .. End With" comes up, a language
religion war starts.

I think we've proven here that's not actually true. Else you have a very
different definition of "war" than I do.

[...] As far as being ambiguous, just don't use nested With ... End
With statements and you avoid ambiguity.

That's true. So?

Pete

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Tom Dacon <td****@communi ty.nospamwrote:

Whenever the religious wars flare up around languages, the C# people are
always dissing VB (I notice that it never seems to go the other way)

Rubbish - I've seen it go the other way plenty of times. *Some* VB
developers (obviously it's not all) are more than happy to diss C# due
to case sensitivity, and the fact that it uses braces instead of
Begin/End etc.

I've also seen many disparaging comments from VB developers claiming
that all C# developers are elitist snobs who are more interested in
purity than in getting things done.

but in fact the VB people have given us some quite useful
capabilities that the C# people haven't seen fit to offer us. The
With statement is one

I'm happy with just object initializers - most of the benefit but less
room for abuse.

better support for late binding is another (particularly important
when you're talking to certain Win32 PIA assemblies like the Office
libraries)

Coming in C# 4.

simple IDE setup for event handlers is yet another,

Click on the lightning bolt in the properties tab, then click on the
relevant event. That's not exactly hard, is it? How much simpler is the
VB way? (Of course for Click etc, you can just click in the designer.)

and I just happen to notice, by the way, that if you're going to do
programming in Sql Server 2005 Integration Services VB is the only
option you have. They intended to do C#, or so they say, but never
actually got around to it.

I wasn't aware of that. Assuming it's VB.NET, that does sound odd.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
Web site: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
C# in Depth: http://csharpindepth.com