[RESOLVED]implicit conversion from integer to string

[jmcilhinney]

Yes after reading this page earlier

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.71%29.aspx

I didn't actually ask whether you knew what implicit and explicit conversions are. I asked whether you knew what the words "implicit" and "explicit" mean. They are not specifically programming terms and, as apparently a native English speaker, you should know what they mean already. If you know how to imply something, i.e. suggest something without actually saying it outright, then you know what implicit means. If you know what implicit means then you inherently know what explicit means. If you do something and I say that only a stupid person would do that, I'm obviously saying that you're stupid but I never actually said that you're stupid. The fact that you're stupid is implicit in my statement. If I just came out and called you stupid then my statement would be explicit. By the way, I don't actually think you're stupid. That was just an example that came to mind.

Now, in your code, you are assigning an Integer value to a String property. A String property can only hold a String so you are implying that the value must be converted without actually converting it. That's an implicit conversion. If you convert the value yourself then that's an explicit conversion.

[ident]

I completely agree it's no different. How ever i was more encouraging the op to show me evidence he was using an integer as a setting rather then have us guess. Then we could of suggest a more valid handling using integer.parse etc.

[Joacim Andersson]

The OP has obviously inherited the code so he might not know where and how this function is used elsewhere. By just looking at the naming convention used by this method one must assume that it was intended for this function to return an integer and most likely for good reasons.

[ident]

The OP has obviously inherited the code so he might not know where and how this function is used elsewhere. By just looking at the naming convention used by this method one must assume that it was intended for this function to return an integer and most likely for good reasons.

For such a basic question should we just assume the OP knows any thing about naming conventions? I simply decided not to assume the op understand whats being returned since his/hers question referenced implicit conversion.

[Joacim Andersson]

But the code is inherited, the OP did not write the project or this method. Why do you assume that the intended code should look different? The question that was asked was answered already in post #3 (or was it #4). I don't understand why this pretty simple and straight forward question has caused this thread to become 45 posts in length.