|
Subject:
|
Chapter 9 (Looping) Try It Out
|
|
Posted By:
|
melbsurfer
|
Post Date:
|
1/26/2006 12:34:23 PM
|
Hello,
I would like to preface my question by letting you know that I am prety much an uber-n00b when it comes to ASP.NET; however, I thought I would ask this question anyway.
I am working on the Try It Out on p. 325. I attempted to type the code out, and while doing so received several (Type 'Item' is not defined) warnings. For instance:
Dim conn As New SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings("WroxUnited").ConnectionString)
The Intellisense kept giving me warnings that these items were undefined. I continued on with the exercise, and see that item 4. says to add the two import statements at the top of the page.
This got rid of the warnings as soon as I typed them. I guess my question would be: Why not have these as item 3, and type the code in item 4? Maybe I am missing something, but it seems if they had been switched I would not have received those warnings...It was kind of frustrating.
I don't mean to come across as being critical. I love the book, and am attempting a cover to cover read. So far it has been great...
|
|
Reply By:
|
Chrisull
|
Reply Date:
|
1/27/2006 11:06:13 AM
|
Hi,
Nope you're absolutely correct. I've been updating the book for C# (my chapters only) and I've noted the occasional oddity like this and tried to iron them out. It's not really and error, but hopefully we can get it corrected in a reprint. It would make more sense to do it the other way around.
Chris
Chris Ullman
Programmer/Technical Author
http://www.cuasp.co.uk
|
|
Reply By:
|
DaveSussman
|
Reply Date:
|
1/27/2006 12:54:33 PM
|
You're right, it's dumb, and I take full responsibility for this one, and why I put them that way around I'll never know. You can blame one, or all of:
1. Gross stupidity
2. I have no idea what I was doing
3. The technical editor is blind
4. Too much malt whisky
These sort of things are interesting in hindsight; it's such a simple thing, it's always surprising when it slips through. And there's no need to apologise - you should be critical of things like this. Errors do creep into manuscripts, but this sort of thing brings more confusion that an error because it's less obvious as to whether there really is a problem or not.
So sorry for confusing you, and as Chris says, we'll try and get this corrected in reprints and the C# version
Dave
|
