The Helpful MSDN



  • "This interface is implemented by the DataView class. Implementation of a method
    should exhibit the same behavior as the implementation of that method in the
    DataView class." --http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.ibindinglist.aspx

     Every time I think I haven't quite gotten OO, I look to Microsoft to assure me that I'm not behind the curve. "The implementation of this interface should mimic the class we implement it with." Thank you. Where can I find the source for that so I don't miss some detail?
     

     



  • It's like "Programming for Dummies". A scary thought.

    What's next? "How to fix your coffee-cup holder"?



  • Also, up until recently, the search sucked so bad that I simply couldn't use it and had to Google the MSDN site instead. Searching for Web.config would not bring up the web configuration file format even in the first few pages, and looking for anything uncommon was totally hopeless.



  • Right below that sentence they explain the behavior they are talking about.  And they give a simple implementation as an example.  I'm also fairly sure that DataView is not the only class that implements IBindingList.

    I just discovered a WTF while researching this!  I opened up an old copy of .NET Reflector to look at the library heirarchy.  A message box popped up: "This version of .NET Reflector is out of date.   Do you want to update automatically?  [Yes / No]"  Clicking on [No] exits the program and DELETES the executable (Reflector.exe).  WTF?!?!  Hmm.  Clicking on [Yes] ALSO deletes the executable, but downloads an updated version.  Very odd.

    Anyway, the other implementors of IBindingList (in the .NET Framework) are: BindingList<T> (generic), IBindingListView, DataViewManager, and BindingSource.



  • Edit (stupid board won't let me edit anymore):

     I missed the part about the source being unavailable. That makes it a much bigger WTF, of course. 😃
     



  • Every time I need to go to MSDN and read up on a class in .NET, I have to go to Apple's developer site afterwards just to read some decent API documentation and ease my poor mind.



  • What I really wish is that MDSN would stop returning results from old SDK version by default.

     

    Go search for 'D3DXMATRIX' and look at the first link.   2 SDKs ago.  



  • I don't understand the point of them putting at the top of their searches, results that are invalid:

     

    Nothing on the first page that I could easily find pointed to the documentation that I was looking for without a redirect...



  • Yeah, MSDN has been messed up the past couple of months at least.  I guess they are trying to transition a lot of documentation from msdn.microsoft.com to msdn2.microsoft.com.  A ton of pages at msdn will try to redirect you to the same page as msdn2.  It's funny because sometimes it forces the redirect and sometimes it doesn't.  I just use the cache on Google.  MSDN has its problems, but it's much better than the typical Doxygen shit I have to suffer through.



  • [quote user="luke727"]Yeah, MSDN has been messed up the past couple of months at least.  I guess they are trying to transition a lot of documentation from msdn.microsoft.com to msdn2.microsoft.com.  A ton of pages at msdn will try to redirect you to the same page as msdn2.  It's funny because sometimes it forces the redirect and sometimes it doesn't.  I just use the cache on Google.  MSDN has its problems, but it's much better than the typical Doxygen shit I have to suffer through.[/quote]

    Months? Try years.

    For at least a year, whenever I needed to find something on the MSDN, I've had to go to google and type "search query here site:msdn.microsoft.com"



  • The google toolbar supports Site searches.

     Also if you are using IE, then you can create your own "SearchLInk"...

     

    For example:

    GM wtf

    Which will querry google for the MSDN... You only have to add this to the registry:

    Here are some example query setups... As you can guess %S will be the text after the space

     


    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\KB]
    @="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=%s"
    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\G]
    @="http://www.google.com/search?q=%s"
    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\KB]
    @="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=%s"
     

     



  • [quote user="quamaretto"]

    "This interface is implemented by the DataView class. Implementation of a method
    should exhibit the same behavior as the implementation of that method in the
    DataView class." --http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.ibindinglist.aspx

     Every time I think I haven't quite gotten OO, I look to Microsoft to assure me that I'm not behind the curve. "The implementation of this interface should mimic the class we implement it with." Thank you. Where can I find the source for that so I don't miss some detail?
     

     

    [/quote]

     

    MSDN documentation (or local help for that matter) is awful all around. It's either circular (as above), so underdetailed as to be useless, or completely off-axis, exhibiting obscure targental examples rather than solid useful information.

     

    The other WTF is that you can search MSDN better using Google than with MSDN search.

     



  • I posted about this sort of thing on my blog once:

    "To persist new or changed access or audit rules to a file, use the SetAccessControl or SetAccessControl method. To retrieve access or audit rules from an existing file, use the GetAccessControl or GetAccessControl method."

    Don't you just love having choices?

    If you examine the links in the documentation browser, one is from the "File" class instantiated for a specific file, and one is from the static "FileInfo" class which just reports information about files. But it sure does look weird.



  • @unklegwar said:

    MSDN documentation (or local help for that matter) is awful all around. It's either circular (as above), so underdetailed as to be useless, or completely off-axis, exhibiting obscure targental examples rather than solid useful information.


    There's a reason why I keep a copy of the Win32 SDK documentation around.  It's much easier to read, and the old APIs haven't changed since Win95.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.