9
May
Tags: , | 13 Comments »

C# obsesión – how many characters you are able to put into type? :)

I was writing some return type from function when I got brilliant dumb idea to start playing with braces, question marks etc. :) And I came with some self-competition to write a lot of different characters into a valid type definition (in C#, of course). And simple repeating doesn’t count. But why not to create this as a public competition. ;)

With the short first try I ended up with this:

IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<int, int?>?[,]>

That’s probably not the best what can be done. Do you have better idea? OK, it’s your turn. Use comments. The best – I’m the referee – will get the lolipop.

Sorry for all spanish speaking people if the word in title isn’t right.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Share/Bookmark

There's 13 Comments So Far

  • Tomas Petricek
    May 11th, 2009 at 00:39

    Hi, here is my type. Without namespaces, it looks like this:Func>,Expression>,Expression>>It’s not something I made up right now. I’ve been actually using this here: http://tomasp.net/blog/dynamic-linq-queries.aspx However, you get some bonus points for using funky symbols like “?”, “[,]“.Did I win some prize :-) ? T.

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 09:12

    Hi Tomas,nice, but I’m afraid, this is simple repeating. :\ But you’re right now on 2nd place and that’s half of lolipop. :) Let’s see what will others create.

  • rob
    May 11th, 2009 at 11:35

    You write about C# obsession and you forget to use this most significant character :-) ) IEnumerable?[,]>#if DEBUG []#endif myMember;

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 11:42

    What character do you mean? The ‘#’? I have doubts it’s allowed in type definiton.

  • rob
    May 11th, 2009 at 11:55

    # of course. Just try what I created… It works fine. I wouldn’t suggest anyone to use such things, but the same is true for your type definition, isn’t it?

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 12:34

    Yes. But the ‘#’ isn’t valid for type (at least I think). I’m interested only in pure type definition characters. :)

  • rob
    May 11th, 2009 at 13:14

    Using #if in type definition is definitely valid.The rest is question of interpretation. If you look on given compilation result then type definition is unconditional (it doesn’t contains #). But if you look on C# source then definition of type is conditional and contains # character.According to rules you presented in this blog I assume that source definition is important.

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 13:23

    The #if isn’t defining the type nor it’s part of type. It’s conditional directive, for compiler. It’s valid code, but not type (only type).

    <joking>And I’ll be choosing the winner, hence I say no. :D </joking>

  • rob
    May 11th, 2009 at 17:04

    I don’t agree :-) But it’s certainly wise choice from you, because at the moment you allow it, someone can suggest someting like#if (DEBUG && !VC_V7)So what about this:IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<global::System.Int32, int?>?[,]>There is . and :

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 17:12

    Yep, somebody can suggest this, but for me it’s not a type definition (in my definition). ;) The ‘:’ and ‘.’ it’s good, extra points added. :)

  • pbouda
    May 11th, 2009 at 17:41

    One extra character:
    @IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<global::System.Int32, int?>?[,]>

  • cincura.net
    May 11th, 2009 at 21:49

    Nice. I didn’t even know that the ‘@’ is working here.

  • cincura.net
    June 26th, 2009 at 19:09

    There were good improvements to my base, but only one can be winner – the idea with “@” from pbouda. I’ll try to contact you via email and find some way to give you the prize (lolipop or beer).

Share your thoughts, leave a comment!