base-class-library

How can I convert BitArray to a single int ? private int getIntFromBitArray(BitArray bitArray) { if (bitArray.Length > 32) throw new ArgumentException("Argument length shall be at most 32 bits."); int[] array = new int[1]; bitArray.CopyTo(array, 0); return array[0]; } private int getIntFromBitArray(BitArray bitArray) { int value = 0; for (int i = 0; i < bitArray.Count; i++) { if (bitArray[i]) value += Convert.ToInt16(Math.Pow(2, i)); } return value; } This version: works for up to 64 bits doesn't rely on knowledge of BitArray implementation details doesn't needlessly allocate memory doesn't

We all know mutable structs are evil in general. I'm also pretty sure that because IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator() returns type IEnumerator<T> , the structs are immediately boxed into a reference type, costing more than if they were simply reference types to begin with. So why, in the BCL generic collections, are all the enumerators mutable structs? Surely there had to have been a good reason. The only thing that occurs to me is that structs can be copied easily, thus preserving the enumerator state at an arbitrary point. But adding a Copy() method to the IEnumerator interface would have been

In the .NET BCL there are circular references between: System.dll and System.Xml.dll System.dll and System.Configuration.dll System.Xml.dll and System.Configuration.dll Here's a screenshot from .NET Reflector that shows what I mean: How Microsoft created these assemblies is a mystery to me. Is a special compilation process required to allow this? I imagine something interesting is going on here. I can only tell how the Mono Project does this. The theorem is quite simple, though it gives a code mess. They first compile System.Configuration.dll, without the part needing the reference to System

Is there a reason for this? I am asking because if you needed to use lots of empty chars then you get into the same situation as you would when you use lots of empty strings. Edit: The reason for this usage was this: myString.Replace ('c', '') So remove all instances of 'c's from myString. Jon Skeet There's no such thing as an empty char. The closest you can get is '\0' , the Unicode "null" character. Given that you can embed that within string literals or express it on its own very easily, why would you want a separate field for it? Equally, the "it's easy to confuse "" and " " " arguments

I have read this in answer to many questions on here. But what exactly does it mean? var test = new Dictionary<int, string>(); test.Add(0, "zero"); test.Add(1, "one"); test.Add(2, "two"); test.Add(3, "three"); Assert(test.ElementAt(2).Value == "two"); The above code seems to work as expected. So in what manner is a dictionary considered unordered? Under what circumstances could the above code fail? Jon Skeet Well, for one thing it's not clear whether you expect this to be insertion-order or key-order . For example, what would you expect the result to be if you wrote: var test = new Dictionary