Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>The issue here is largely one of good practice and preventing against inadvertent mistakes. Admittedly, the C# compiler <em>could theoretically</em> be designed such that there is no conflict between scopes here. This would however be much effort for little gain, as I see it.</p> <p>Consider that if the declaration of <code>var</code> in the parent scope were <em>before</em> the if statement, there would be an unresolvable naming conflict. The compiler simply does not differentiate between the following two cases. Analysis is done <em>purely based on scope</em>, and not order of declaration/use, as you seem to be expecting.</p> <p>The theoretically acceptable (but still invalid as far as C# is concerned):</p> <pre><code>if(true) { string var = "VAR"; } string var = "New VAR!"; </code></pre> <p>and the unacceptable (since it would be hiding the parent variable):</p> <pre><code>string var = "New VAR!"; if(true) { string var = "VAR"; } </code></pre> <p>are both treated precisely the same in terms of variables and scopes.</p> <p>Now, is there any actual reason in this secenario why you can't just give one of the variables a different name? I assume (hope) your actual variables aren't called <code>var</code>, so I don't really see this being a problem. If you're still intent on reusing the same variable name, just put them in sibling scopes:</p> <pre><code>if(true) { string var = "VAR"; } { string var = "New VAR!"; } </code></pre> <p>This however, while valid to the compiler, can lead to some amount of confusion when reading the code, so I recommend against it in almost any case.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POC# variable scoping: 'x' cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to 'x'
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USSarah Vessels
    1. USNoldorin
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POC# variable scoping: 'x' cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to 'x'
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COOf course the compiler would be able to differentiate the two scopes, the inner variable would only hide the outer, and make it unreachable.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USMats Fredriksson
    2. COYeah exactly - it's disallowed simply because it can lead to confusion/is considered bad design practice.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USNoldorin
    3. COwell seen from the IL view point Im pretty sure the if{} scope doesn't exist so it would mean having the compiler do tricks for the value of potential confusion, so if im correct it's not actively disallowed but passively. The needed feature is simply not implemented
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USRune FS
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload