_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, Object

Re:_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, ... by Loeffelmaenn on Monday January 10, 2022 @04:44AM (#29872443)

Why wouldn't the just use the params [0] keyword for stuff like this?

[0]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-refe...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, ... by pjmlp on Monday January 10, 2022 @05:58AM (#29872990)

Because this is an OLE 2.0 library for Office automation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, ... by egeozcan on Monday January 10, 2022 @04:47AM (#29872465)

My humble guess is that it didn't exist when this was designed?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, ... by mixtur2021 on Monday January 10, 2022 @05:04AM (#29872584)

This looks like the interop libraries auto generated off the Office OLE Automation interfaces. SafeArrays should have existed back then. I imagine this was used instead for perceived developer friendliness vs forcing developers to box up and create a Safe Array to marshall in (more boilerplate).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:_Application.Run(Object, Object, Object, Object, Object, ... by AtNightWeCode on Monday January 10, 2022 @09:08AM (#29874989)

Don't think it works in this case. In general why there are so many overloads in C# with parameters like arg0, arg1, arg2 and so on is because of the poor performance of the params solution for value types.

[ Parent | on HN ]