language-features

Would having a nice little feature that makes it quicker to write code like Automatic Properties fit very nicely with the mantra of VB.NET? Something like this would work perfect: Public Property FirstName() As String Get Set End Property UPDATE: VB.NET 10 (coming with Visual Studio 2010 and .NET 4.0) will have Automatic Properties. Here's a link that shows a little info about the feature: http://geekswithblogs.net/DarrenFieldhouse/archive/2008/12/01/new-features-in-vb.net-10-.net-4.0.aspx In VB.NET 10 Automatic Properties will be defines like this: Public Property CustomerID As Integer One

I often find myself doing: foo = foo ?? x; Why can't I do: foo ??= x; Edit : I know it's not part of the language... My question is "why not"? I find the necessity to repeat "foo" to be unpleasing and potentially error-prone. It looks just as ugly as: foo = foo + x; In general, the C# language design team is conservative about adding new syntax. They say that the value of an addition to the language must be weighed against the cost of increased complexity in the language. Peter Hallam was the C# Compiler development lead for a while, and also a member of the C# language design team. He wrote

This question already has answers here : Closed 9 years ago . Possible Duplicate: In Java, how do i find the caller of a method using stacktrace or reflection? I'm just curious. I was requesting that feature sometimes, but then I solved it with more code. (the calling class said its name while calling the method) private Class getCallingClass() { return new SecurityManager() { protected Class[] getClassContext(){return super.getClassContext();} }.getClassContext()[2]; } OR public class Foo { public static final void main(final String[] args) { test(); } private static void test() { Throwable e

In Nullable micro-optimizations, part one , Eric mentions that Nullable<T> has a strange boxing behaviour that could not be achieved by a similar user-defined type. What are the special features that the C# language grants to the predefined Nullable<T> type? Especially the ones that could not be made to work on a MyNullable type. Of course, Nullable<T> has special syntactic sugar T? , but my question is more about semantics. Eric Lippert What I was getting at is: there is no such thing as a boxed nullable . When you box an int , you get a reference to a boxed int . When you box an int? , you