Old style Collections

[=?Utf-8?B?Z3V5?=]

I find the Generic collection classes really usefull, so usefull in fact that
I do not usually use the old style collections like ArrayList and Hashtable.

In fact if I did need a collection of potentially anything I would use a
List(of object) rather than an ArrayList.

Are there any occaisions where the old collections are preferable?

Guy

[Tom Shelton]

Re: Old style Collections

On Nov 8, 9:05 am, guy <g...@discussio ns.microsoft.co mwrote:

I find the Generic collection classes really usefull, so usefull in fact that
I do not usually use the old style collections like ArrayList and Hashtable.
>
In fact if I did need a collection of potentially anything I would use a
List(of object) rather than an ArrayList.
>
Are there any occaisions where the old collections are preferable?
>
Guy

None come to mind.

--
Tom Shelton

[=?Utf-8?B?QU1lcmNlcg==?=]

RE: Old style Collections

I find the Generic collection classes really usefull, so usefull in fact
that

I do not usually use the old style collections like ArrayList and Hashtable.
>
In fact if I did need a collection of potentially anything I would use a
List(of object) rather than an ArrayList.
>
Are there any occaisions where the old collections are preferable?

I still have one such case remaining (all others converted to generics). It
is a queue where each queue entry is an array of objects. By convention, the
zero'th array element is a string whose value tells you how to interpret the
remaining array elements. The dequeueing thread needs to operate
sequentially on the queue (that's why a queue in the first place), and I
can't see a good way to convert to generics.

[Tom Shelton]

Re: Old style Collections

On Nov 8, 2:30 pm, AMercer <AMer...@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote:

I find the Generic collection classes really usefull, so usefull in fact

that

I do not usually use the old style collections like ArrayList and Hashtable.

>

In fact if I did need a collection of potentially anything I would use a
List(of object) rather than an ArrayList.

>

Are there any occaisions where the old collections are preferable?

>
I still have one such case remaining (all others converted to generics). It
is a queue where each queue entry is an array of objects. By convention, the
zero'th array element is a string whose value tells you how to interpret the
remaining array elements. The dequeueing thread needs to operate
sequentially on the queue (that's why a queue in the first place), and I
can't see a good way to convert to generics.

dim q as new queue(of object())()

:)

--
Tom Shelton

[=?Utf-8?B?QU1lcmNlcg==?=]

Re: Old style Collections

dim q as new queue(of object())()

Well, sure, but I'd still have 'object' rather than something more specific,
and I'd still be Ctype'ing. If my solution were just an Object rather than
an Array of Objects, then
dim q as new queue(of object)
would be using a generic without purpose.

I guess the more direct answer to guy's original question is this: a queue
of diverse objects that do not have any common inheritence other than
'object' and where their sequencing is all important.

[Tom Shelton]

Re: Old style Collections

On Nov 8, 4:25 pm, AMercer <AMer...@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote:

dim q as new queue(of object())()

>
Well, sure, but I'd still have 'object' rather than something more specific,
and I'd still be Ctype'ing. If my solution were just an Object rather than
an Array of Objects, then
dim q as new queue(of object)
would be using a generic without purpose.
>
I guess the more direct answer to guy's original question is this: a queue
of diverse objects that do not have any common inheritence other than
'object' and where their sequencing is all important.

I was only funning you. That's why I had the :) in my message....
Really with queue, you are probably not gaining anything - there isn't
even the extra convienience of the new findx methods (it's queue,
duh!). I might be tempted to do a performance comparison, just to see
if there were any new optimizations in the new generic queue, but
somehow, I doubt it.

--
Tom Shelton