Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cm2187 3590 days ago
And a very verbose syntax. You have to repeat everywhere the different types of the different members.
2 comments
ojanik 3590 days ago
Tuple.Create(3, "hello", true)

Type inference FTW.

link
andyjohnson0 3590 days ago
I find that the verbosity can be minimised by type aliasing. E.g:

using Complex = System.Tuple<double, double>;

Edit: Clarity

link
cm2187 3590 days ago
But then you might as well declare a class or structure to store the data. The point of tuples is to be self-contained.
link
andyjohnson0 3590 days ago
It maybe wasn't clear, but I was referring to the parent's point about verbosity when using the 'old' Tuple class.

    using Complex = System.Tuple<double, double>;
is less verbose than

    public class Complex
    {
        public double i { get; set; }
        public double j { get; set; }
    }
link
douche 3590 days ago
Not quite equivalent, since System.Tuple is immutable. So, at minimum:

  public class Complex {
    private readonly double _i;
    private readonly double _j;
    public double I {get {return _i;}}
    public double J {get{return _j;}}
    public Complex(double i, double j){
      _i = i;
      _j = j;
    }
  }
But System.Tuple is also IComparable, IStructuralComparable, IStructuralEquatable. I haven't had enough coffee yet to add all the boilerplate for that to the above, which only reinforces the point about verbosity.
link
algorithmsRcool 3589 days ago
Although with c# 6.0 (current release) you can simplify that to:

  public class Complex {
    public double I { get; } 
    public double J { get; }
    public Complex(double i, double j) {
      I = i;
      J = j;
    }
  }
link
doodpants 3589 days ago
Even before C# 6.0, you could simplify it this way:

  public class Complex {
    public double I { get; private set; } 
    public double J { get; private set; }
    public Complex(double i, double j) {
      I = i;
      J = j;
    }
  }
link