MyCalculator | It 's a four functions calculator version 1.0 | Apps library

Turns out I was being completely blind and didnt realize i had implemented my event on the item with:

You could go for something like this, which uses the new Stream library.

Here's how you do it:

• You have syntax issue in script
• you're not printing the text
• you're not calculating the discounted value.

Here is the jsfiddle

I recommend you to use this function to calculate average :

Remove TODO("not implemented") leaving beforeTextChanged() { } with an empty body if you're not going to use the callback.

Is there a way to bind that static method to the TouchUp event handler property of LongUpDowns in xaml (ideally to all of them at once)? Something like this:

No, there isn't. The XAML compiler can only find event handlers in the same class as the element itself.

You could define a TouchUp event handler in the code-behind file for the view where the element is and call the static method from there. It's a one-liner:

You are over complicating things. Java 9 added some nice of() methods to the Collections utility class. You can use those to create a map filled with values without the need to call an extra init method. Then you pass that map instance to new HashMap() to get that data into a modifiable map instance. And with older java, you can always write a method that creates and returns a prefilled map. There is no need to do creation and filling like you do (in separate pieces of code).

For the record: you understand that all fields of an interface are static by default and thus shared between all code using them?!

Regarding final, there are quite some differences to const from C++. The only thing that a final parameter gives you is checking that prevents you from inadvertently writing to a parameter. It can be useful to have that, but most people simply don't use it because they add such little gain, but make code quite harder to read.

According to this:

There are times when you could use non-private fields, because for whatever reason you don't care about the compatibility reasons above. However, there are still benefits to using properties even for trivial situations:

-There's more fine-grained access control with properties. Need it to be publicly gettable but really only want it set with protected access? No problem (from C# 2 onwards, at least).

-Want to break into the debugger whenever the value changes? Just add a breakpoint in the setter.

-Want to log all access? Just add logging to the getter. Properties are used for data binding; fields aren't.

In almost all cases, fields should be private. Not just non-public, but private. With automatic properties in C# 3, there's basically no cost in readability or the amount of code involved to use a property instead of a field. Very occasionally you might find a genuinely good reason, but think long and hard about it before committing to that choice, particularly if you'll be exposing it beyond internal access.

and for the underscore:

There's no language-defined meaning - it's just a convention some people use to distinguish instance variables from local variables. Other variations include m_foo (and s_foo or g_foo or static variables) or mFoo; alternatively some people like to prefix the local variables (and parameters) instead of the instance variables.

just when ever you want to create a variable inside class put a simple {set;get;} in front of it. no harm done.