Logical On

[Cor]

Hi group,

A question to the group, would it not be for a lot of the users better when
there was beside "Option strict on" an "Option logical Strict on".

I was automaticaly writting Textbox1.text = 0.tostring. I know what it has
to be, but I did this automaticly.

I find this crazy, it cannot be something else than a string, so the
compiler must have to find this very easy, but for the puritains, than that
option, than they can set it off.

I think that for a lot of VB users this kind of things is more important
than operator overloading or other more C behaviour (I understand a lot of
sophisticated users want it, so I would not say, don't let them make it, but
I think that this "Option logical strict on" would get 90% of the users
while operator overloading maybe 10%).

Just a thougth?

Cor

[Tony Cantara]

Webster's 1913 - bet that version doesn't have an entry for McJob.

The definition: "low-paying and dead-end work".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3255883.stm

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.co m> wrote in message news:<#i******* *******@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl>. ..

Hiya Hex,

|| The crux of my previous post is what <other> implicit methods would exist

I agree. I've held back on my own comments because I wanted to ponder that very point
(but there's not really enough brain awake so far).

I think the point we differ on is that you're thinking of the type of the 3, while
it's the receiving type which would determine which conversion is required. I can see that
there could be clashes, not with S and 3, perhaps, but in other combinations there would
be the question 'which one?' - which is what you were getting at I believe.

That aside, this is an excellent opportunity to ask about 'Hexathioorthoo xalate'.
Hexa is the six, of course, as in benzene, thio is sulphur, oxalate is oxalic acid and
ortho is the paired carbon substitution. (All courtesy of Webster's 1913 Dictionary -
http://www.hyperdictionary.com) But I've found no web reference to the combination, nor of
course, as to why you and it are one!

Regards,
Fergus

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi Tony,

|| McDonald's anger over McJob entry
||
|| McDonald's has expressed its outrage over how
|| the latest Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
|| describes job prospects at the US fast-food giant.

ROFL.

There's Webster's 1913 and then there's
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=mcjob&f=1

Regards,
Fergus

[Mitch]

check out some of the other definitions of mcjobs from other online
sites...real funny..i think this is blown out of proportions!

http://go.jitbot.com/urban_ref_mcjob
http://go.jitbot.com/4reference-mcjob
http://go.jitbot.com/wikipipedia-mcjob
http://go.jitbot.com/collins_dic-mcjob
http://go.jitbot.com/american_dic-mcjob

Mitch
"Tony Cantara" <to************ @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...

Webster's 1913 - bet that version doesn't have an entry for McJob.

The definition: "low-paying and dead-end work".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3255883.stm

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.co m> wrote in message

news:<#i******* *******@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl>. ..

Hiya Hex,

|| The crux of my previous post is what <other> implicit methods would exist
I agree. I've held back on my own comments because I wanted to ponder that very point (but there's not really enough brain awake so far).

I think the point we differ on is that you're thinking of the type of the 3, while it's the receiving type which would determine which conversion is required. I can see that there could be clashes, not with S and 3, perhaps, but in other combinations there would be the question 'which one?' - which is what you were getting at I believe.
That aside, this is an excellent opportunity to ask about 'Hexathioorthoo xalate'. Hexa is the six, of course, as in benzene, thio is sulphur, oxalate is oxalic acid and ortho is the paired carbon substitution. (All courtesy of Webster's 1913 Dictionary - http://www.hyperdictionary.com) But I've found no web reference to the combination, nor of course, as to why you and it are one!

Regards,
Fergus

[Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]]

Cor,
If you are saying that an implicit conversion from integer to String should
occur in:

Dim s As String
s = 0

Then Operator Overloading will enable us to define this behavior for our own
classes, not sure if the conversions will be defined for the base classes.
(they are some already defined, that are available in C# today).

My only concern with the above example is: Should the compiler use A or B
below?

A:
s = 0.ToString()

B:
s = "0"

C:
s = ChrW(0)

I would not expect C, however Herfried has a point.

Obviously if we used a variable instead of a literal (or constant) then B is
not an option. While for literals B would be more efficient.

Hope this helps
Jay


"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..

Hi group,

A question to the group, would it not be for a lot of the users better when there was beside "Option strict on" an "Option logical Strict on".

I was automaticaly writting Textbox1.text = 0.tostring. I know what it has
to be, but I did this automaticly.

I find this crazy, it cannot be something else than a string, so the
compiler must have to find this very easy, but for the puritains, than that option, than they can set it off.

I think that for a lot of VB users this kind of things is more important
than operator overloading or other more C behaviour (I understand a lot of
sophisticated users want it, so I would not say, don't let them make it, but I think that this "Option logical strict on" would get 90% of the users
while operator overloading maybe 10%).

Just a thougth?

Cor