We Keep Coding

How to reference identifiers with dollar signs from C#?

I'm trying to use a DLL generated by ikvmc from a jar file compiled from Scala code (yeah my day is THAT great). The Scala compiler seems to generate identifiers containing dollar signs for operator overloads, and IKVM uses those in the generated DLL (I can see it in Reflector). The problem is, dollar signs are illegal in C# code, and so I can't reference those methods.
Any way to work around this problem?

You should be able to access the funky methods using reflection. Not a nice solution, but at least it should work. Depending on the structure of the API in the DLL it may be feasible to create a wrapper around the methods to localise the reflection code. Then from the rest of your code just call the nice wrapper.
The alternative would be to hack on the IL in the target DLL and change the identifiers. Or do some post-build IL-hacking on your own code.

Perhaps you can teach IKVM to rename these identifiers such that they have no dollar sign? I'm not super familar, but a quick search pointed me at these:
http://weblog.ikvm.net/default.aspx?date=2005-05-02
What is the format of the Remap XML file for IKVM?
String and complex data types in Map.xml for IKVM!
Good Hunting

Write synonyms for those methods:
def +(a:A,b:A) = a + b
val plus = + _

I fear that you will have to use Reflection in order to access those members. Escaping simply doesn't work in your case.
But for thoose of you, who interested in escaping mechanics I've wrote an explanation.
In C# you can use the #-sign in order to escape keywords and use them as identifiers. However, this does not help to escape invalid characters:
bool #bool = false;
There is a way to write identifiers differently by using a Unicode escape sequence:
int i\u0064; // '\u0064' == 'd'
id = 5;
Yes this works. However, even with this trick you can still not use the $-sign in an identifier. Trying...
int i\u0024; // '\u0024' == '$'
... gives the compiler error "Unexpected character '\u0024'". The identifier must still be a valid identifier! The c# compiler probably resolves the escape sequence in a kind of pre-processing and treats the resulting identifier as if it had been entered normally
So what is this escaping good for? Maybe it can help you, if someone uses a foreign language character that is not on your keyboard.
int \u00E4; // German a-Umlaut
ä = 5;

CamelCase conversion to friendly name, i.e. Enum constants; Problems?

In my answer to this question, I mentioned that we used UpperCamelCase parsing to get a description of an enum constant not decorated with a Description attribute, but it was naive, and it didn't work in all cases. I revisited it, and this is what I came up with:
var result = Regex.Replace(camelCasedString,
#"(?<a>(?<!^)[A-Z][a-z])", #" ${a}");
result = Regex.Replace(result,
#"(?<a>[a-z])(?<b>[A-Z0-9])", #"${a} ${b}");
The first Replace looks for an uppercase letter, followed by a lowercase letter, EXCEPT where the uppercase letter is the start of the string (to avoid having to go back and trim), and adds a preceding space. It handles your basic UpperCamelCase identifiers, and leading all-upper acronyms like FDICInsured.
The second Replace looks for a lowercase letter followed by an uppercase letter or a number, and inserts a space between the two. This is to handle special but common cases of middle or trailing acronyms, or numbers in an identifier (except leading numbers, which are usually prohibited in C-style languages anyway).
Running some basic unit tests, the combination of these two correctly separated all of the following identifiers: NoDescription, HasLotsOfWords, AAANoDescription, ThisHasTheAcronymABCInTheMiddle, MyTrailingAcronymID, TheNumber3, IDo3Things, IAmAValueWithSingleLetterWords, and Basic (which didn't have any spaces added).
So, I'm posting this first to share it with others who may find it useful, and second to ask two questions:
Anyone see a case that would follow common CamelCase-ish conventions, that WOULDN'T be correctly separated into a friendly string this way? I know it won't separate adjacent acronyms (FDICFCUAInsured), recapitalize "properly" camelCased acronyms like FdicInsured, or capitalize the first letter of a lowerCamelCased identifier (but that one's easy to add - result = Regex.Replace(result, "^[a-z]", m=>m.ToString().ToUpper());). Anything else?
Can anyone see a way to make this one statement, or more elegant? I was looking to combine the Replace calls, but as they do two different things to their matches it can't be done with these two strings. They could be combined into a method chain with a RegexReplace extension method on String, but can anyone think of better?

So while I agree with Hans Passant here, I have to say that I had to try my hand at making it one regex as an armchair regex user.
(?<a>(?<!^)((?:[A-Z][a-z])|(?:(?<!^[A-Z]+)[A-Z0-9]+(?:(?=[A-Z][a-z])|$))|(?:[0-9]+)))
Is what I came up with. It seems to pass all the tests you put forward in the question.
So
var result = Regex.Replace(camelCasedString, #"(?<a>(?<!^)((?:[A-Z][a-z])|(?:(?<!^[A-Z]+)[A-Z0-9]+(?:(?=[A-Z][a-z])|$))|(?:[0-9]+)))", #" ${a}");
Does it in one pass.

not that this directly answers the question, but why not test by taking the standard C# API and converting each class into a friendly name? It'd take some manual verification, but it'd give you a good list of standard names to test.

Let's say every case you come across works with this (you're asking us for examples that won't and then giving us some, so you don't even have a question left).
This still binds UI to programmatic identifiers in a way that will make both programming and UI changes brittle.
It still assumes your program will only be used in one language. Either your potential market it so small that just indexing an array of names would be scalable enough (e.g. a one-client bespoke or in-house project), or you are assuming you will never be successful enough to need to be available to other languages or other dialects of your first-chosen language.
Does "well, it'll work as long as we're a failure" sound like a passing grade in balancing designs?
Either code it to use resources, or else code it to pass the enum name blindly or use an array of names, as that at least will be modifiable afterwards.

Regex to parse C/C++ functions declarations

I need to parse and split C and C++ functions into the main components (return type, function name/class and method, parameters, etc).
I'm working from either headers or a list where the signatures take the form:
public: void __thiscall myClass::method(int, class myOtherClass * )
I have the following regex, which works for most functions:
(?<expo>public\:|protected\:|private\:) (?<ret>(const )*(void|int|unsigned int|long|unsigned long|float|double|(class .*)|(enum .*))) (?<decl>__thiscall|__cdecl|__stdcall|__fastcall|__clrcall) (?<ns>.*)\:\:(?<class>(.*)((<.*>)*))\:\:(?<method>(.*)((<.*>)*))\((?<params>((.*(<.*>)?)(,)?)*)\)
There are a few functions that it doesn't like to parse, but appear to match the pattern. I'm not worried about matching functions that aren't members of a class at the moment (can handle that later). The expression is used in a C# program, so the <label>s are for easily retrieving the groups.
I'm wondering if there is a standard regex to parse all functions, or how to improve mine to handle the odd exceptions?

C++ is notoriously hard to parse; it is impossible to write a regex that catches all cases. For example, there can be an unlimited number of nested parentheses, which shows that even this subset of the C++ language is not regular.
But it seems that you're going for practicality, not theoretical correctness. Just keep improving your regex until it catches the cases it needs to catch, and try to make it as stringent as possible so you don't get any false matches.
Without knowing the "odd exceptions" that it doesn't catch, it's hard to say how to improve the regex.

Take a look at Boost.Spirit, it is a boost library that allows the implementation of recursive descent parsers using only C++ code and no preprocessors. You have to specify a BNF Grammar, and then pass a string for it to parse. You can even generate an Abstract-Syntax Tree (AST), which is useful to process the parsed data.
The BNF specification looks like for a list of integers or words separated might look like :
using spirit::alpha_p;
using spirit::digit_p;
using spirit::anychar_p;
using spirit::end_p;
using spirit::space_p;
// Inside the definition...
integer = +digit_p; // One or more digits.
word = +alpha_p; // One or more letters.
token = integer | word; // An integer or a word.
token_list = token >> *(+space_p >> token) // A token, followed by 0 or more tokens.
For more information refer to the documentation, the library is a bit complex at the beginning, but then it gets easier to use (and more powerful).

No. Even function prototypes can have arbitrary levels of nesting, so cannot be expressed with a single regular expression.
If you really are restricting yourself to things very close to your example (exactly 2 arguments, etc.), then could you provide an example of something that doesn't match?

What is wrong with ToLowerInvariant()?

I have the following line of code:
var connectionString = configItems.
Find(item => item.Name.ToLowerInvariant() == "connectionstring");
VS 2010 code analysis is telling me the following:
Warning 7 CA1308 : Microsoft.Globalization : In method ... replace the call to 'string.ToLowerInvariant()' with String.ToUpperInvariant().
Does this mean ToUpperInvariant() is more reliable?

Google gives a hint pointing to CA1308: Normalize strings to uppercase
It says:
Strings should be normalized to uppercase. A small group of characters, when they are converted to lowercase, cannot make a round trip. To make a round trip means to convert the characters from one locale to another locale that represents character data differently, and then to accurately retrieve the original characters from the converted characters.
So, yes - ToUpper is more reliable than ToLower.
In the future I suggest googling first - I do that for all those FxCop warnings I get thrown around ;) Helps a lot to read the corresponding documentation ;)

Besides what TomTom says, .net is optimized for string comparison in upper case. So using upper invariant is theoretically faster than lowerinvariant.
This is indeed stated in CLR via C# as pointed out in the comments.
Im not sure if this is of course really true since there is nothing to be found on MSDN about this topic. The string comparison guide on msdn mentions that toupperinvariant and tolowerinvariant are equal and does not prefer the former.

Regex index in matching string where the match failed

I am wondering if it is possible to extract the index position in a given string where a Regex failed when trying to match it?
For example, if my regex was "abc" and I tried to match that with "abd" the match would fail at index 2.
Edit for clarification. The reason I need this is to allow me to simplify the parsing component of my application. The application is an Assmebly language teaching tool which allows students to write, compile, and execute assembly like programs.
Currently I have a tokenizer class which converts input strings into Tokens using regex's. This works very well. For example:
The tokenizer would produce the following tokens given the following input = "INP :x:":
Token.OPCODE, Token.WHITESPACE, Token.LABEL, Token.EOL
These tokens are then analysed to ensure they conform to a syntax for a given statement. Currently this is done using IF statements and is proving cumbersome. The upside of this approach is that I can provide detailed error messages. I.E
if(token[2] != Token.LABEL) { throw new SyntaxError("Expected label");}
I want to use a regular expression to define a syntax instead of the annoying IF statements. But in doing so I lose the ability to return detailed error reports. I therefore would at least like to inform the user of WHERE the error occurred.

I agree with Colin Younger, I don't think it is possible with the existing Regex class. However, I think it is doable if you are willing to sweat a little:
Get the Regex class source code
(e.g.
http://www.codeplex.com/NetMassDownloader
to download the .Net source).
Change the code to have a readonly
property with the failure index.
Make sure your code uses that Regex
rather than Microsoft's.

I guess such an index would only have meaning in some simple case, like in your example.
If you'll take a regex like "ab*c*z" (where by * I mean any character) and a string "abbbcbbcdd", what should be the index, you are talking about?
It will depend on the algorithm used for mathcing...
Could fail on "abbbc..." or on "abbbcbbc..."

I don't believe it's possible, but I am intrigued why you would want it.

In order to do that you would need either callbacks embedded in the regex (which AFAIK C# doesn't support) or preferably hooks into the regex engine. Even then, it's not clear what result you would want if backtracking was involved.

It is not possible to be able to tell where a regex fails. as a result you need to take a different approach. You need to compare strings. Use a regex to remove all the things that could vary and compare it with the string that you know it does not change.
I run into the same problem came up to your answer and had to work out my own solution. Here it is:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11730035/637142
hope it helps