development of the language

[Doug McLeod]

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Regards
Doug

[Ken Tucker [MVP]]

Hi,

1)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...et05132003.asp

3) Add image to combobox.
http://www.onteorasoftware.com/ComboBox.aspx#AnsCQ1

Ken
------------------------------

"Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:03****************************@phx.gbl...

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Regards
Doug

[Jan Tielens]

1) Yes, they will be in the Whidbey release.
2) I don't think so (please correct me if I'm wrong!)
3) You'll have to use a 3rd party control. There are many of them:
http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&ie...bobox+.net&met
a=
--
Greetz

Jan Tielens
________________________________
Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan
"Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:03****************************@phx.gbl...

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Regards
Doug

[Armin Zingler]

"Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> schrieb

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
As the others said: yes. I don't need them anymore.
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
I don't know. I hope they will - despite I unexpectedly lived quite will
with only-zero-based arrays.
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

I don't like the flat style. Back to DOS.... (I know that's not what you
want to know)
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Armin Zingler]

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> schrieb

As the others said: yes. I don't need them anymore.

Clarification: I don't need _control arrays_ anymore, not "the others". :)
--
Armin

[Cor]

Hi Doug,

Just because my answer is another than from the others

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced

As far as I know they did not disapear, you can use the arrays (the VB ones)
still from 1.
The vb collection you can only use from one.

Although I dont like that behaviour and I have seen a lot of crititique on
it and would be glad if it did not exist, it takes now some extra checking.

But if I am wrong, please correct me?

Cor

[Michael Hesse]

Thanks for pointing out that page and those "Adventure" articles. They are
VERY helpful.

Michael

"Ken Tucker [MVP]" <vb***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uj**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi,

1)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...et05132003.asp
3) Add image to combobox.
http://www.onteorasoftware.com/ComboBox.aspx#AnsCQ1

Ken
------------------------------

"Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:03****************************@phx.gbl...

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Regards
Doug

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> scripsit:

1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
Yes.
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
I don't think so, but I hope they will be reintroduced.
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Samples at <http://www.codeproject.com> and
<http://www.vbaccelerator.com>.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Cor" <no*@non.com> scripsit:

Just because my answer is another than from the others

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
As far as I know they did not disapear, you can use the arrays (the VB ones)
still from 1.

I don't understand what you want to tell us with this sentence.
The vb collection you can only use from one.

Although I dont like that behaviour and I have seen a lot of crititique on
it and would be glad if it did not exist, it takes now some extra checking.

What?

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Tom Shelton]

In article <uO**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

* "Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> scripsit:

<snip>

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced

I don't think so, but I hope they will be reintroduced.

Personally, I don't care if they do or not - but it is a matter of
implementation, not a limitation of the framework. Native .NET arrays
do allow arbitrary bounds. In fact, you can use arbitrary bounds in
VB.NET if your array has more then one dimension. I'm sure you realize
this, but I just thought I'd point it out. If people really want this
feature, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for MS to implement.
--
Tom Shelton
MVP [Visual Basic]

[Mattias Sjögren]

Doug,

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced

In Whidbey you'll at least be able to explicitly specify that the
lower bound is zero with

Dim arr(0 To 9) As Integer

That's a start...

Mattias

--
Mattias Sjögren [MVP] mattias @ mvps.org
http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* Tom Shelton <to*@mtogden.com> scripsit:

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced

I don't think so, but I hope they will be reintroduced.

Personally, I don't care if they do or not - but it is a matter of
implementation, not a limitation of the framework. Native .NET arrays
do allow arbitrary bounds. In fact, you can use arbitrary bounds in
VB.NET if your array has more then one dimension. I'm sure you realize
this, but I just thought I'd point it out. If people really want this
feature, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for MS to implement.

I remember the early VB.NET beta days when thousands of VB users wanted
arbitrary bounds back. They were told that this was not possible to
allow language interoperability, IMO a bad excuse.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Mike Bulava]

Uhm this may be a dumb comment but I thought that there was a Command
something like Option Exlicit that let array's be 0 or 1 based i'm not sure
of the Syntax though I'd have to look it up.

Although why would you want Arrays to be 1 based in every other lanuage they
are 0 based.
Mike Bulava

"Doug McLeod" <tu******@optusnet.com.au.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:03****************************@phx.gbl...

Could anyone please tell me
1) If control arrays may be reintroduced in a future
version of Visual Basic
2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced
3) If there is any way of getting a flat version of the
combobox, or image combobox control. I cannot understand
this striking omission from the properties of this control.

Regards
Doug

[Tom Leylan]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote...

I remember the early VB.NET beta days when thousands of VB users wanted
arbitrary bounds back. They were told that this was not possible to
allow language interoperability, IMO a bad excuse.

Gosh, thank goodness clearer heads prevailed :-) .Net is sold by virtue of
it having language interoperability, it's a key feature.

I seem to recall that the VB6 implementation didn't retain knowledge of the
"weird" numbering scheme when such an array was passed as a parameter to
another function. I could be remembering wrong but if that is the case then
it seems clear they are a horrible idea.

I can think of a single benefit to reintroducing them but why stop there...
how about even numbered elements only? How about negatively number element
arrays?

Clearly they will return (or not) due to the actions of MS not us, but I
wouldn't use them in any case.

[Cor]

> I don't understand what you want to tell us with this sentence.

The vb collection you can only use from one.

I thought you did know this.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...isualBasic.asp

Zero-Based and One-Based Collections
A collection is either zero-based or one-based, depending on what its
starting index is. As you might guess, the former means that the index of
the first item in the collection is zero, and the latter means that it is
one. An example of a zero-based collection is the Controls collection,
discussed above. An instance of the Collection object, also discussed above,
is an example of a one-based collection.

One-based collections are more intuitive to use, because the index ranges
from one to Count, where the Count property returns the number of items in a
collection. The index of a zero-based collection, by contrast, ranges from
zero to one less than the Count property.

The .NET Framework is standardizing collection as being zero-based. The
Visual Basic Collection class is one based primarily for the purpose of
compatibility with previous versions

[Tom Shelton]

In article <eL*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Tom Leylan wrote:

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote...

<snip>
Clearly they will return (or not) due to the actions of MS not us, but I
wouldn't use them in any case.

Me neither. I never used them in VB.CLASSIC - so I'm not about to start
now :) The only change I want made is to put the pre-beta2 declarations
back. You know, declaring the number of elements - not the upperbound.
Don't think that's going to happen though :(

--
Tom Shelton
MVP [Visual Basic]

[Tom Shelton]

In article <uT**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

* Tom Shelton <to*@mtogden.com> scripsit:

2) If non-zero based arrays are likely to be reintroduced

I don't think so, but I hope they will be reintroduced.

Personally, I don't care if they do or not - but it is a matter of
implementation, not a limitation of the framework. Native .NET arrays
do allow arbitrary bounds. In fact, you can use arbitrary bounds in
VB.NET if your array has more then one dimension. I'm sure you realize
this, but I just thought I'd point it out. If people really want this
feature, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for MS to implement.

I remember the early VB.NET beta days when thousands of VB users wanted
arbitrary bounds back. They were told that this was not possible to
allow language interoperability, IMO a bad excuse.

Well, yes and no. It seems to me that VB.NET has pretty much tried to
force CLS compliance - and non-zero based arrays are not, probably
because they don't exist in most languages. But, with the introduction
of unsigned types in Whidbey, they won't really have that excuse
anymore. The native array type, does support this.

--
Tom Shelton
MVP [Visual Basic]

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Cor" <no*@non.com> scripsit:

The vb collection you can only use from one.

I thought you did know this.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...isualBasic.asp

Zero-Based and One-Based Collections
A collection is either zero-based or one-based, depending on what its
starting index is. As you might guess, the former means that the index of
the first item in the collection is zero, and the latter means that it is
one. An example of a zero-based collection is the Controls collection,
discussed above. An instance of the Collection object, also discussed above,
is an example of a one-based collection.

One-based collections are more intuitive to use, because the index ranges
from one to Count, where the Count property returns the number of items in a
collection. The index of a zero-based collection, by contrast, ranges from
zero to one less than the Count property.

The .NET Framework is standardizing collection as being zero-based. The
Visual Basic Collection class is one based primarily for the purpose of
compatibility with previous versions

ACK. IMO really silly. I would like to be all collections and arrays
1-based and I would like to specify the number of elements in the array
when declaring it instead of specifying the upper bound. VB.NET would
be much more intuitive...

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* Tom Shelton <to*@mtogden.com> scripsit:

Personally, I don't care if they do or not - but it is a matter of
implementation, not a limitation of the framework. Native .NET arrays
do allow arbitrary bounds. In fact, you can use arbitrary bounds in
VB.NET if your array has more then one dimension. I'm sure you realize
this, but I just thought I'd point it out. If people really want this
feature, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for MS to implement.

I remember the early VB.NET beta days when thousands of VB users wanted
arbitrary bounds back. They were told that this was not possible to
allow language interoperability, IMO a bad excuse.

Well, yes and no. It seems to me that VB.NET has pretty much tried to
force CLS compliance - and non-zero based arrays are not, probably
because they don't exist in most languages. But, with the introduction
of unsigned types in Whidbey, they won't really have that excuse
anymore. The native array type, does support this.

I hope it will only be a matter of time until arbitrary array bounds are
re-introduced.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>

[Cor]

Hi Herfried

ACK. IMO really silly. I would like to be all collections and arrays
1-based and I would like to specify the number of elements in the array
when declaring it instead of specifying the upper bound. VB.NET would
be much more intuitive...

I don't and just because I dont like this
\\\
for index as integer = 1 to array-length
controlItem(index-1) = array.item(index)
next
///
Or do I understand you wrong?

Cor

[Armin Zingler]

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb

for index as integer = 1 to array-length

I don't wanna be pedantic, but I think it is

... to array.length - 1

isn't it? :-)
--
Armin

[Cor]

Hi Armin,

I don't wanna be pedantic, but I think it is

... to array.length - 1

isn't it? :-)

I am smilling now, because I did this express even the - in array-length and
not a dot was express.

I used the word array to show that it is very disturbing when you do it with
an array and was hoping Herfried was giving a kind of comment you did.

When I had written first

dim myarray as vb-collection

You would not have written this message I think.

:-)))

Cor

[Armin Zingler]

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb

I used the word array to show that it is very disturbing when you do
it with an array and was hoping Herfried was giving a kind of comment
you did.

When I had written first

dim myarray as vb-collection

You would not have written this message I think.

:-)))

Cor

I shouldn't jump into topics that I don't understand, or at least read the
thread more thoroughly... ;-(
--
Armin

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> scripsit:

for index as integer = 1 to array-length

I don't wanna be pedantic, but I think it is

... to array.length - 1

isn't it? :-)

Cor starts the loop with 1.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<http://www.mvps.org/dotnet>