An easy to understand and simple solution.
// Save today's date.
var today = DateTime.Today;
// Calculate the age.
var age = today.Year - birthdate.Year;
// Go back to the year in which the person was born in case of a leap year
if (birthdate.Date > today.AddYears(-age)) age--;
However, this assumes you are looking for the western idea of the age and not using East Asian reckoning.
There is actually a (subtle) difference between the two. Imagine you have the following code in File1.cs:
// File1.cs
using System;
namespace Outer.Inner
{
class Foo
{
static void Bar()
{
double d = Math.PI;
}
}
}
Now imagine that someone adds another file (File2.cs) to the project that looks like this:
// File2.cs
namespace Outer
{
class Math
{
}
}
The compiler searches Outer
before looking at those using
directives outside the namespace, so it finds Outer.Math
instead of System.Math
. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?), Outer.Math
has no PI
member, so File1 is now broken.
This changes if you put the using
inside your namespace declaration, as follows:
// File1b.cs
namespace Outer.Inner
{
using System;
class Foo
{
static void Bar()
{
double d = Math.PI;
}
}
}
Now the compiler searches System
before searching Outer
, finds System.Math
, and all is well.
Some would argue that Math
might be a bad name for a user-defined class, since there's already one in System
; the point here is just that there is a difference, and it affects the maintainability of your code.
It's also interesting to note what happens if Foo
is in namespace Outer
, rather than Outer.Inner
. In that case, adding Outer.Math
in File2 breaks File1 regardless of where the using
goes. This implies that the compiler searches the innermost enclosing namespace before it looks at any using
directive.
Best Answer
I suspect you've got the same problem at least twice.
Here:
... you're declaring a type with the same name as the namespace it's in. Don't do that.
Now you apparently have the same problem with
Time2
. I suspect if you add:to your list of
using
directives, your code will compile. But please, please, please fix the bigger problem: the problematic choice of names. (Follow the link above to find out more details of why it's a bad idea.)(Additionally, unless you're really interested in writing time-based types, I'd advise you not to do so... and I say that as someone who does do exactly that. Use the built-in capabilities, or a third party library such as, um, mine. Working with dates and times correctly is surprisingly hairy. :)