If you have long variablenames and would end up with:
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.FirstName="Stefan"
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.LastName="Karlsson"
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.Age="39"
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.Sex="Male"
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.Occupation="Programmer"
UserHandler.GetUser.First.User.UserID="0"
....and so on
then I would use WITH to make it more readable:
With UserHandler.GetUser.First.User
.FirstName="Stefan"
.LastName="Karlsson"
.Age="39"
.Sex="Male"
.Occupation="Programmer"
.UserID="0"
end with
In the later example there are even performance benefit over the first example because in the first example Im fetching the user every time I access a user property and in the WITH-case I only fetch the user one time.
I can get the performance gain without using with, like this:
dim myuser as user =UserHandler.GetUser.First.User
myuser.FirstName="Stefan"
myuser.LastName="Karlsson"
myuser.Age="39"
myuser.Sex="Male"
myuser.Occupation="Programmer"
myuser.UserID="0"
But I would go for the WITH statement instead, it looks cleaner.
And I just took this as an example so dont complain over a class with many keywords, another example could be like: WITH RefundDialog.RefundDatagridView.SelectedRows(0)
Actually, although I blogged (see Luke's answer), I think this is better than my IDisposable wrapper. Typical code:
Service<IOrderService>.Use(orderService=>
{
orderService.PlaceOrder(request);
});
(edit per comments)
Since Use
returns void, the easiest way to handle return values is via a captured variable:
int newOrderId = 0; // need a value for definite assignment
Service<IOrderService>.Use(orderService=>
{
newOrderId = orderService.PlaceOrder(request);
});
Console.WriteLine(newOrderId); // should be updated
Best Solution
There is no way to refer to the object referenced in the With statement, other than repeating the name of the object itself.
EDIT
If you really want to, you could modify your an object to return a reference to itself
Then you could use the following code
Finally, if you cannot modify the code for an object, you could (but not necessarily should) accomplish the same thing via an extension method. One generic solution is:
called like so:
or