• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "C# query... async-everything"

Collapse

  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueSharp View Post
    IMO adding Async at the end of a method name is a hangover from when it was implemented and you had to use a different method name to get the dam thing to compile. Dropping Async if their is no none async alternative is acceptable.
    I hadn't seen that but it would make sense as the compiler gets smarter and smarter. Currently doing all this C#10 NRTs stuff and it's quite impressive, the compiler knows at any point in code if a given variable can be null or not based on if you checked, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueSharp
    replied
    IMO adding Async at the end of a method name is a hangover from when it was implemented and you had to use a different method name to get the dam thing to compile. Dropping Async if their is no none async alternative is acceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • woohoo
    replied
    You don't have to name them xxxxAsync - if you do im buggered

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Having to name your methods xxxAsync seems particularly kludgy to me (I'm not sure if this is required or just encouraged).
    It just seems like a keyword modifier could be used to imply you are returning Task<whatever>.
    It IS a paradigm shift in the whole language.

    Leave a comment:


  • woohoo
    replied
    I wouldn't say I was on the bleeding edge, but I did read this

    Implicit async/await · Discussion #5469 · dotnet/csharplang · GitHub

    I know what you mean about the extra typing and almost everything ends up being async anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    started a topic C# query... async-everything

    C# query... async-everything

    The modern async stuff in C# is pretty cool, but async 'infects' code a bit like GPL - anything calling an async method is typically async too unless it needs to 'collapse' using await.
    So every method ends up returning Task<whatever you want to return> and being called MethodNameAsync.

    I was wondering if C# will move to make that implicit at some point because it leads to pretty ugly code and more typing. Anyone on the bleeding edge of C# to know? I noticed today that you can have a console app without a main() method so it seemed plausible.

Working...
X