🚀 go-pugleaf

Rudy,

I'll bet you don't use foreach either out of fear that someone didn't
implement the IEnumerator type properly. ;)

Joe
-- 
Joe Mayo, Author/Instructor
Need C#/.NET training?
visit www.mayosoftware.com
C# Tutorial - www.csharp-station.com

"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <velthuis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0dl07ajkmedb043-moderator@newsgroups.borland.com...
> At 21:31:35, 20.07.2004, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen (TeamB) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:57:58 +0200, Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > <velthuis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So, we know that because it is documented and because we can see the
> > > source. But that is an implementation detail.
> >
> > But the "detail" is important enough to warrant a separate language
> > feature (the "overloading" of the using keyword - the syntactic sugar
> > for try/finally). I'd say that is guarantee enough that it actually
> > will  clean up resources - including calling Close(). After calling
> > Dispose(),  after all, the object should be a candidate for garbage
> > collection.
>
> I can close items like streams or StreamWriters without actually
> disposing of them. I could reuse and reopen them, I guess.
>
> And I can't really say if I can do the reverse, i.e. disposing of a
> StreamWriter without closing it. That depends on what Close is supposed
> to do.
>
> So generally, one can't use one for the other. And I would not make an
> exception in this case. I think that would make code less maintainable
> and less enhanceable.
>
> So practically, it may not make a difference. But from a pure design POV,
> I think it is basically wrong to use one for the other.
> -- 
> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
>
> "Small minds run in the same gutter."
>  -- Alfred E. Neuman