Difference between [RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]

  • Thread starter Thread starter K Viltersten
  • Start date Start date
K

K Viltersten

I can't find any good information on the
relation/difference between
[RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]
attributes in the code. Please advise.
 
K Viltersten said:
I can't find any good information on the
relation/difference between
[RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]
attributes in the code. Please advise.
Click to expand...

Almost no difference at all. From the C# 3.0 spec, section 17.2:

<quote>
By convention, attribute classes are named with a suffix of Attribute.
An attribute-name of the form type-name may either include or omit this
suffix. If an attribute class is found both with and without this
suffix, an ambiguity is present, and a compile-time error results. If
the attribute-name is spelled such that its right-most identifier is a
verbatim identifier (§2.4.2), then only an attribute without a suffix
is matched, thus enabling such an ambiguity to be resolved.
</quote>
 
I can't find any good information on the
relation/difference between
[RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]
attributes in the code. Please advise.
Click to expand...

Almost no difference at all. From the C# 3.0 spec, section 17.2:

<quote>
By convention, attribute classes are named with a suffix of Attribute.
An attribute-name of the form type-name may either include or omit this
suffix. If an attribute class is found both with and without this
suffix, an ambiguity is present, and a compile-time error results. If
the attribute-name is spelled such that its right-most identifier is a
verbatim identifier (§2.4.2), then only an attribute without a suffix
is matched, thus enabling such an ambiguity to be resolved.
</quote>

Great info. Thanks!

For some reason VS2005 will suggest the name
sans the suffix when using autogenerated code.
i almost got punched today for using the
suffix while a colleague insisted on not to.
 
K Viltersten said:
Great info. Thanks!

For some reason VS2005 will suggest the name
sans the suffix when using autogenerated code.
i almost got punched today for using the
suffix while a colleague insisted on not to.
Click to expand...

I think omitting the suffix is idiomatic - I certainly don't include it
myself.
 
K said:
I can't find any good information on the
relation/difference between
[RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]
attributes in the code. Please advise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For some reason VS2005 will suggest the name
sans the suffix when using autogenerated code.
i almost got punched today for using the
suffix while a colleague insisted on not to.
Click to expand...

VS and your colleague are right. If you write
FoobarAttribute, then you will have all the maintainers
of your code searching for FoobarAttributeAttribute !

Arne
 
Arne Vajhøj said:
VS and your colleague are right. If you write
FoobarAttribute, then you will have all the maintainers
of your code searching for FoobarAttributeAttribute !
Click to expand...

Oh yes, XmlAttributeAttribute certainly did teach us that sort of thing,
didn't it... :)
 
I can't find any good information on the
relation/difference between
[RunInstaller(true)] and [RunInstallerAttribute(true)]
attributes in the code. Please advise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For some reason VS2005 will suggest the name
sans the suffix when using autogenerated code.
i almost got punched today for using the
suffix while a colleague insisted on not to.
Click to expand...

VS and your colleague are right. If you write
FoobarAttribute, then you will have all the maintainers
of your code searching for FoobarAttributeAttribute !
Click to expand...

How can we explain that the code provided by
MS on in the help uses the suffix, then? Is
it a mistake? A special case? Please advise.
 
K Viltersten said:
How can we explain that the code provided by
MS on in the help uses the suffix, then? Is
it a mistake? A special case? Please advise.
Click to expand...

It is _allowed_ to both provide and omit the suffix, so it's not a mistake.
On the other hand, Microsoft samples in MSDN have never been particularly
good as far as coding style is concerned - they often don't even follow
Microsoft's own style guide. Overall, vast majority of hand-written C# code
I've seen omits the suffix - after all, that was why it is allowed to do so
in the first place.
 
How can we explain that the code provided by
It is _allowed_ to both provide and omit the suffix, so it's not a
mistake. On the other hand, Microsoft samples in MSDN have never been
particularly good as far as coding style is concerned...
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks!
 
Back
Top