//TODO - Chris Marinos' Blog - All Comments

re: *Nixing Your Windows Workstation - Part 1

cmarinos — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:02:11 GMT

@Chris Bilson-

I have heard good things about autohotkey, but I've never tried it out. Since I already find myself turning caps lock on far to often when using other people's machines, I worry about what using autohotkey could do to me!

Anyway, thanks for the tip!

-Chris

re: *Nixing Your Windows Workstation - Part 1

Chris Bilson — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:00:57 GMT

Re: #3: Check out autohotkey. You can rebind keys per application, or in windows with specific titles, and all kinds of crazy stuff. It's a keyboard junkies best friend.

re: Introducing Elevate

Matthias Broschk — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:32:04 GMT

Thank you, great works, with these continuous developments I am really curious abous how a 'common' C# code piece will look like in 5-10 years.

re: Introducing Elevate

Amit — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:06:39 GMT

Excellant work..Thanks for sharing

re: Early Impressions - F# in Visual Studio 2010 Beta 1 and May CTP

cmarinos — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:55:04 GMT

@Mike Chaliy-

Yikes, that sounds painful, and here I was complaining about having to right click!

re: Introducing Elevate

GioL — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:23:39 GMT

awesome tool. This could save time in first stage of development. Thanks

re: Early Impressions - F# in Visual Studio 2010 Beta 1 and May CTP

Mike Chaliy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:21:04 GMT

Thanks, I was not avare about Move Up and Move Down. I used to edit project file to do the same thing :).

re: Introducing Elevate

Doug.UK — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:02:43 GMT

I agree about the " duplicating effort" risk as all that will give us is the VHS/Betamax war later. Cool that you are bothered to explore, research this. With luch the best of both will get consolidated into something better.

I would like to point out that zinngyRed on gray is not that visible, eg look at "# Niki said on 13 October, 2009 03:21 AM " post.

re: Introducing Elevate

alimbada — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:27:54 GMT

I think everyone would be better off if you contributed to Mono.Rocks (www.mono-project.com/Rocks) rather than duplicating effort in this manner.

re: Introducing Elevate

cmarinos — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:17:34 GMT

@Niki-

You wouldn't. It turns out that we got a little carried away when building LINQ extensions and forgot about the standard LINQ version. We've corrected the issue in a recent checkin by Obsoleted the SelectWithIndex() method.

Good catch, and thanks for the feedback!

-Chris

re: Introducing Elevate

Niki — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:21:25 GMT

Just curious: Why would you use SelectIndex instead of the Enumerable.Select overload that passes an index to the select-function?

-> msdn.microsoft.com/.../bb534869.aspx

re: Introducing Elevate

cmarinos — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:36:47 GMT

@Vladekk-

Thanks, we should probably look into adding support for traversals of collections like that.

-Chris

re: Introducing Elevate

cmarinos — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:35:16 GMT

@Mohit Dwivedi

Thanks, but we hope that Elevate is a good approach for developers of all ages :)

-Chris

re: Introducing Elevate

cmarinos — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:33:15 GMT

@Brian-

It's cool if you aren't down with the .Through style off int. It seems to work well in languages like Ruby, though.

Also note that you aren't required to use it off constants. In practice, you'd more likely see something like this:

var nums = start.Through(end);

You can also use the static method syntax:

var nums = ThroughExtensions.Through(start, end);

We might want to change the name on the "ThroughExtensions", part though. ...If only C# supported modules like F#...

To accomplish the 0..9 to 10..100 mapping, see TImes:

9.Times(n => (n+1) *10);

Seq.Times(10, n=> (n+1) * 10);

if you don't like extending off int.

Thoughts? (this might also be a good topic to discuss over on our Google group.)

-Chris

re: Introducing Elevate

Brian — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:48:24 GMT

In my opinion, 1.Through(10) goes too far in the use of extension methods. Using literals in this way seems wrong.

Also, in practice one doesn't really build up sequences of constants.

Maybe it would be better to generalize by a sequence builder of arbitrary types off of an integer iterator. For example: the integers 0..9 maps to the sequence 10..100 this way:

int length = 10;

var seq = BuildSeq(length, n => (n + 1) * 10 );