ListViewItem and ListViewSubItem

[Klaudiusz Bryja]

Hi,

I have some problem. I try to get ListViewSubItem type using:

Type t = (new
Form).GetType() .Assembly.GetTy pe("System.Wind ows.Forms.ListV iewItem.ListVie wSubItem")

but I get t == null. I notice that I can do that using:

Type t = (new
Form).GetType() .Assembly.GetTy pe("System.Wind ows.Forms.ListV iewItem
+ListViewSubIte m")

Why I have to use "+" sign in namespace? What does it mean? Whay in
msdn is ListViewItem.Li stViewSubItem not ListViewItem+Li stViewSubItem?

Best regards,
Klaudiusz

[Peter Duniho]

Re: ListViewItem and ListViewSubItem

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:07:30 -0700, Klaudiusz Bryja
<bryja_klaudius z@poczta.fmwrot e:

I have some problem. I try to get ListViewSubItem type using:
>
Type t = (new
Form).GetType() .Assembly.GetTy pe("System.Wind ows.Forms.ListV iewItem.ListVie wSubItem")
>
but I get t == null.

What are you _really_ trying to do? That is, why do you even want the
type?

As far as your question goes, it seems to me that the most
straight-forward fix is to not use Assembly.GetTyp e() at all. Just use
the "typeof" operator:

Type t = typeof(ListView SubItem);

Pete

[Marc Gravell]

Re: ListViewItem and ListViewSubItem

+ is the token used internally to indicate nested classes, rather than
classes within a namespace. However, there is no need to use strings here:

Type type = typeof(System.W indows.Forms.Li stViewItem.List ViewSubItem);

Marc

[Pavel Minaev]

Re: ListViewItem and ListViewSubItem

On Aug 1, 4:07 pm, Klaudiusz Bryja <bryja_klaudi.. .@poczta.fmwrot e:

Why I have to use "+" sign in namespace? What does it mean? Whay in
msdn is ListViewItem.Li stViewSubItem not ListViewItem+Li stViewSubItem?

"+" is a reflection-specific way of denoting nested classes. In C# you
can use "." because the compiler handles this for you; however, this
means that in C#, you cannot have a namespace that contains another
namespace and a class with the same name (CLS forbids this as well, by
the way). CLR itself does not restrict such a thing, however, so you
can write it in IL and compile using ilasm, for example, and
reflection should be able to handle any valid CLR assembly, whether it
is generated by C# or something else, and whether it is CLS-compliant
or not, so it had to make this explicit.