Yes, my bad. However, I highly doubt this type of solution is what reflection is intended for. That's hitting the proverbial nail with a sledgehammer.

-Peter

Thank you for the correction Joe. (You'd think MS could have "normalized" that too while they were fixing all the other datatype inconsistencies.)

-Peter

Well a lot of (bad) ORMs work with reflection but not with fields but properties. Its a ugly thing (reflection) but can save you form writing some hundred lines of code.

And that string[SIZE] thingy. I'm old C coder and it would be absolute horror for me if indexing would start from 1 all the sudden. In C family languages indexing starts from zero! :)

I do some VB.NET projects from time to time and every fricking time when I access array using index I forget that in VB indices start from 1. It drives me nuts! IndexOutOfBounds has become very familiar exception to me :(

I meant that it would be nice if they fixed the array initialization so that VB was consistent with the other. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that array indexing should be 1 based, oh the horror.

-Peter

Ah. Now I got it. But still its C family language and it should act like any other language in that category, imo. (Visual) Basic on the other hand is a different kind of beast and is "the leading cause of brain damage in proto-hackers" ;)

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/BASIC.html

  ...if the fields are public and begin with p0:

class Foo {
    public string p0, p1, p2, ..., p9;
}

- Bob

...or change

to...