Originally posted by BlueSharp
View Post
- 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!
Reply to: C# query... async-everything
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "C# query... async-everything"
Collapse
-
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: