The [Flags]
attribute should be used whenever the enumerable represents a collection of possible values, rather than a single value. Such collections are often used with bitwise operators, for example:
var allowedColors = MyColor.Red | MyColor.Green | MyColor.Blue;
Note that the [Flags]
attribute doesn't enable this by itself - all it does is allow a nice representation by the .ToString()
method:
enum Suits { Spades = 1, Clubs = 2, Diamonds = 4, Hearts = 8 }
[Flags] enum SuitsFlags { Spades = 1, Clubs = 2, Diamonds = 4, Hearts = 8 }
...
var str1 = (Suits.Spades | Suits.Diamonds).ToString();
// "5"
var str2 = (SuitsFlags.Spades | SuitsFlags.Diamonds).ToString();
// "Spades, Diamonds"
It is also important to note that [Flags]
does not automatically make the enum values powers of two. If you omit the numeric values, the enum will not work as one might expect in bitwise operations, because by default the values start with 0 and increment.
Incorrect declaration:
[Flags]
public enum MyColors
{
Yellow, // 0
Green, // 1
Red, // 2
Blue // 3
}
The values, if declared this way, will be Yellow = 0, Green = 1, Red = 2, Blue = 3. This will render it useless as flags.
Here's an example of a correct declaration:
[Flags]
public enum MyColors
{
Yellow = 1,
Green = 2,
Red = 4,
Blue = 8
}
To retrieve the distinct values in your property, one can do this:
if (myProperties.AllowedColors.HasFlag(MyColor.Yellow))
{
// Yellow is allowed...
}
or prior to .NET 4:
if((myProperties.AllowedColors & MyColor.Yellow) == MyColor.Yellow)
{
// Yellow is allowed...
}
if((myProperties.AllowedColors & MyColor.Green) == MyColor.Green)
{
// Green is allowed...
}
Under the covers
This works because you used powers of two in your enumeration. Under the covers, your enumeration values look like this in binary ones and zeros:
Yellow: 00000001
Green: 00000010
Red: 00000100
Blue: 00001000
Similarly, after you've set your property AllowedColors to Red, Green and Blue using the binary bitwise OR |
operator, AllowedColors looks like this:
myProperties.AllowedColors: 00001110
So when you retrieve the value you are actually performing bitwise AND &
on the values:
myProperties.AllowedColors: 00001110
MyColor.Green: 00000010
-----------------------
00000010 // Hey, this is the same as MyColor.Green!
The None = 0 value
And regarding the use of 0
in your enumeration, quoting from MSDN:
[Flags]
public enum MyColors
{
None = 0,
....
}
Use None as the name of the flag enumerated constant whose value is zero. You cannot use the None enumerated constant in a bitwise AND operation to test for a flag because the result is always zero. However, you can perform a logical, not a bitwise, comparison between the numeric value and the None enumerated constant to determine whether any bits in the numeric value are set.
You can find more info about the flags attribute and its usage at msdn and designing flags at msdn
I use javascript:void(0)
.
Three reasons. Encouraging the use of #
amongst a team of developers inevitably leads to some using the return value of the function called like this:
function doSomething() {
//Some code
return false;
}
But then they forget to use return doSomething()
in the onclick and just use doSomething()
.
A second reason for avoiding #
is that the final return false;
will not execute if the called function throws an error. Hence the developers have to also remember to handle any error appropriately in the called function.
A third reason is that there are cases where the onclick
event property is assigned dynamically. I prefer to be able to call a function or assign it dynamically without having to code the function specifically for one method of attachment or another. Hence my onclick
(or on anything) in HTML markup look like this:
onclick="someFunc.call(this)"
OR
onclick="someFunc.apply(this, arguments)"
Using javascript:void(0)
avoids all of the above headaches, and I haven't found any examples of a downside.
So if you're a lone developer then you can clearly make your own choice, but if you work as a team you have to either state:
Use href="#"
, make sure onclick
always contains return false;
at the end, that any called function does not throw an error and if you attach a function dynamically to the onclick
property make sure that as well as not throwing an error it returns false
.
OR
Use href="javascript:void(0)"
The second is clearly much easier to communicate.
Best Answer
Any x86 instruction that has lock prefix has full memory barrier. As shown Abel's answer, Interlocked* APIs and CompareExchanges use lock-prefixed instruction such as
lock cmpxchg
. So, it implies memory fence.Yes, Interlocked.CompareExchange uses a memory barrier.
Why? Because x86 processors did so. From Intel's Volume 3A: System Programming Guide Part 1, Section 7.1.2.2:
volatile
has nothing to do with this discussion. This is about atomic operations; to support atomic operations in CPU, x86 guarantees all previous loads and stores to be completed.