what's the equivalent

[rodchar]

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's equivalent,plea se?

static tempVar as String

thanks,
rodchar

[Arne Vajhøj]

Re: what's the equivalent

rodchar wrote:

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's equivalent,plea se?
>
static tempVar as String

also static in C#

as in:

static string tempVar;

Arne

[Ciaran O''Donnell]

RE: what's the equivalent

static is a C# keyword,
Its Shared in VB

Ciaran O'Donnell

"rodchar" wrote:

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's equivalent,plea se?
>
static tempVar as String
>
thanks,
rodchar

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

RE: what's the equivalent

The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to retain
the value of a variable inside a function.

Shared and Static in VB.NET and C# respectively mean, when applied to a
variable, that all instances of the object share the same piece of data.

Peter
--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com

UnBlog:

http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"rodchar" wrote:

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's equivalent,plea se?
>
static tempVar as String
>
thanks,
rodchar

[Arne Vajhøj]

Re: what's the equivalent

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote:

The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to retain
the value of a variable inside a function.

Like C ?

What about simply moving it outside the function (and make
it static if it is a static method) ?

Arne

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

Re: what's the equivalent

You could certainly do that. But my point to the OP was, if you are comparing
against classic VB there is no direct equivalent:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx

Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com

UnBlog:

http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

"Arne Vajhøj" wrote:

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote:

The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to retain
the value of a variable inside a function.

>
Like C ?
>
What about simply moving it outside the function (and make
it static if it is a static method) ?
>
Arne
>

[rodchar]

Re: what's the equivalent

thanks everyone for the great feedback.

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:

You could certainly do that. But my point to the OP was, if you are comparing
against classic VB there is no direct equivalent:
>
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
>
Peter
>
--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com

UnBlog:

http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

>
>
>
>
"Arne Vajhøj" wrote:
>

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote:

The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to retain
the value of a variable inside a function.

Like C ?

What about simply moving it outside the function (and make
it static if it is a static method) ?

Arne

[David Anton]

RE: what's the equivalent

The "static" local variable in VB is not limited to "classic" VB, but is
alive and well in VB.NET also.
There is no C# equivalent. It can be replaced by a class-level instance or
static variable in C# (depending on whether the original method was an
instance or static method), but this doesn't quite capture the usefulness of
the local static variable.
--
David Anton

https://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com

Instant C#: VB to C# converter
Instant VB: C# to VB converter
Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter
Instant Python: VB to Python converter


"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:

The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to retain
the value of a variable inside a function.
>
Shared and Static in VB.NET and C# respectively mean, when applied to a
variable, that all instances of the object share the same piece of data.
>
Peter
--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com

UnBlog:

http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com

>
>
>
>
"rodchar" wrote:
>

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's equivalent,plea se?

static tempVar as String

thanks,
rodchar

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

RE: what's the equivalent

David Anton <DavidAnton@dis cussions.micros oft.comwrote:

The "static" local variable in VB is not limited to "classic" VB, but is
alive and well in VB.NET also.
There is no C# equivalent. It can be replaced by a class-level instance or
static variable in C# (depending on whether the original method was an
instance or static method), but this doesn't quite capture the usefulness of
the local static variable.

It does, however, *exactly* capture the semantics - as that's what the
VB.NET compiler converts the code into.

Personally I'm glad that C# doesn't have statics. Persistent state
should be a property of types and objects, not methods. Whenever a
method feels like it needs state, consider whether that state is
inherently part of the object, or whether it should be part of a new
class in its own right, which the object has a reference to an instance
of.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ben Voigt]

Re: what's the equivalent


"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:45535d9b$0 $49199$14726298 @news.sunsite.d k...

Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] wrote:

>The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
>modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to
>retain the value of a variable inside a function.

>
Like C ?
>
What about simply moving it outside the function (and make
it static if it is a static method) ?

No if. C/C++ local statics are reused between all invocations, independent
of arguments (the this pointer is really an argument). So you can use a
global variable or a class static to get the same result.

>
Arne

[Ben Voigt]

Re: what's the equivalent


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co mwrote in message
news:MPG.1fbe37 1c66e9e77d98d5f 0@msnews.micros oft.com...

David Anton <DavidAnton@dis cussions.micros oft.comwrote:

>The "static" local variable in VB is not limited to "classic" VB, but is
>alive and well in VB.NET also.
>There is no C# equivalent. It can be replaced by a class-level instance
>or
>static variable in C# (depending on whether the original method was an
>instance or static method), but this doesn't quite capture the usefulness
>of
>the local static variable.

>
It does, however, *exactly* capture the semantics - as that's what the
VB.NET compiler converts the code into.
>
Personally I'm glad that C# doesn't have statics. Persistent state
should be a property of types and objects, not methods. Whenever a
method feels like it needs state, consider whether that state is
inherently part of the object, or whether it should be part of a new
class in its own right, which the object has a reference to an instance
of.

Agreed. While in C/C++ local statics have a use, namely caching the result
of a complex calculation/database lookup/object instantiation/etc., the VB
semantics are different, introducing *instance* variables. That's just
wrong.

Really, static should never be used to change the meaning of the program,
only to cache the result of an initialization which would take the same
value every time anyway.

>
--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[David Anton]

RE: what's the equivalent

The class level variables simulate the functionality (our converters do
that), but I wouldn't say they capture the semantics well, since the
semantics of "local static" mean that the variable is off limits to other
methods.
I think your additional object idea does capture the semantics very well
(i.e., a method needing state is refactored to a new class where the local
static becomes an object property). We would incorporate that in our
converters, but it's a little too convoluted (it's easier for people to
accept the class variable conversion than a refactoring of their classes).
--
David Anton

https://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com

Instant C#: VB to C# converter
Instant VB: C# to VB converter
Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter
Instant Python: VB to Python converter


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

David Anton <DavidAnton@dis cussions.micros oft.comwrote:

The "static" local variable in VB is not limited to "classic" VB, but is
alive and well in VB.NET also.
There is no C# equivalent. It can be replaced by a class-level instance or
static variable in C# (depending on whether the original method was an
instance or static method), but this doesn't quite capture the usefulness of
the local static variable.

>
It does, however, *exactly* capture the semantics - as that's what the
VB.NET compiler converts the code into.
>
Personally I'm glad that C# doesn't have statics. Persistent state
should be a property of types and objects, not methods. Whenever a
method feels like it needs state, consider whether that state is
inherently part of the object, or whether it should be part of a new
class in its own right, which the object has a reference to an instance
of.
>
--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
>

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: what's the equivalent

David,

Exact, I find it always amazing how some C# users are always bloating that
it is something wrong.

I have seen that it can be a very useful feature.

Moreover I have as well seen that the average VB.Net programmers is more
trying to avoid Global variables than C# ones, with the result that the GC
can do its job better with those VB.Net developers. (In this case from the
static keyword it is opposite, that is why I am always very careful when I
use or advice the static keyword in VB.Net, however it fulfils the behaviour
of the average VB.Net developer to declare variables as late as possible).

Just something I mentioned, and is proven in this thread were is by more
people told to set things global. I would like that C# had better (and
easier) possibilities as in VB.Net to declare things in a method.

Cor


"David Anton" <DavidAnton@dis cussions.micros oft.comschreef in bericht
news:561B43AE-CB47-4E47-B09A-4D7B4827BEF5@mi crosoft.com...

The "static" local variable in VB is not limited to "classic" VB, but is
alive and well in VB.NET also.
There is no C# equivalent. It can be replaced by a class-level instance
or
static variable in C# (depending on whether the original method was an
instance or static method), but this doesn't quite capture the usefulness
of
the local static variable.
--
David Anton

https://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com

Instant C#: VB to C# converter
Instant VB: C# to VB converter
Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter
Instant Python: VB to Python converter
>
>
"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" wrote:
>

>The classic VB "static" keyword and the C# static (and VB.NET "Shared")
>modifiers are not the same thing. In classic VB, "static" was used to
>retain
>the value of a variable inside a function.
>>
>Shared and Static in VB.NET and C# respectively mean, when applied to a
>variable, that all instances of the object share the same piece of data.
>>
>Peter
>--
>Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
>http://www.eggheadcafe.com
>UnBlog:
>http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>"rodchar" wrote:
>>

hey all,
vb has a static keyword for variables, what is charp's
equivalent,plea se?
>
static tempVar as String
>
thanks,
rodchar