compiler-warnings

I get the following warning when I instantiate my ArrayAdapter (compiles fine): warning: [unchecked] unchecked call to ArrayAdapter(android.content.Context,int,java.util.List<T>) as a member of the raw type android.widget.ArrayAdapter ArrayAdapter spinnerArrayAdapter = new ArrayAdapter(CFAMain.this, android.R.layout.simple_spinner_dropdown_item, spinnerArray); And here's the problem line: ArrayAdapter spinnerArrayAdapter = new ArrayAdapter(CFAMain.this, android.R.layout.simple_spinner_dropdown_item, spinnerArray); Anyone have any ideas as to why it's giving me this warning? That's because

When using myDelegate -= eventHandler ReSharper (version 6) issues: Delegate subtraction has unpredictable result The rational behind this is explained by JetBrains here . The explanation makes sense and, after reading it, I'm doubting all my uses of - on delegates. How then , can I write a non-auto event without making ReSharper grumpy? or, is there a better and/or "correct" way to implement this? or, can I just ignore ReSharper? Here is simplified code: public delegate void MyHandler (object sender); MyHandler _myEvent; public event MyHandler MyEvent { add { _myEvent += value;

I stumbled upon a small issue while trying to make const-correct code. I would have liked to write a function that takes a pointer to a const struct, to tell to the compiler "please tell me if I am modifying the struct, because I really do not want to". It suddenly came to my mind that the compiler will allow me to do this: struct A { char *ptrChar; }; void f(const struct A *ptrA) { ptrA->ptrChar[0] = 'A'; // NOT DESIRED!! } Which is understandable, because what actually is const is the pointer itself, but not the type it points to. I would like for the compiler to tell me that I'm doing

What is the significance of the positioning of the const keyword when declaring a variable in Objective-C, for example: extern const NSString * MY_CONSTANT; versus extern NSString * const MY_CONSTANT; Using the first version in assignments produces warnings about "qualifiers from pointer target type" being discarded so I'm assuming that the second version ensures that the pointer address remains the same. I would really appreciate a more definitive answer though. Many thanks in advance! In the first case, you are declaring a mutable pointer to an immutable const NSString object, whereas in the

Since I use Fakes Framework in my UnitTest, I get the following MSBuild warning. warning MSB3270: There was a mismatch between the processor architecture of the project being built "MSIL" and the processor architecture of the reference "DocumentServiceModel", "x86". This mismatch may cause runtime failures. Please consider changing the targeted processor architecture of your project through the Configuration Manager so as to align the processor architectures between your project and references, or take a dependency on references with a processor architecture that matches the targeted processor