Converting a floating-point number to an integer using either CInt or CType will cause the value of that number to be rounded. The Int function and Math.Floor may be used to convert a floating-point number to a whole number, rounding toward negative infinity, but both functions return floating-point values which cannot be implicitly used as Integer values without a cast.
Is there a concise and idiomatic alternative to IntVar = CInt(Int(FloatingPointVar));? Pascal included Round and Trunc functions which returned Integer; is there some equivalent in either the VB.NET language or in the .NET framework?
A similar question, CInt does not round Double value consistently - how can I remove the fractional part? was asked in 2011, but it simply asked if there was a way to convert a floating-point number to an integer; the answers suggested a two-step process, but it didn't go into any depth about what does or does not exist in the framework. I would find it hard to believe that the Framework wouldn't have something analogous to the Pascal Trunc function, given that such a thing will frequently be needed when performing graphical operations using floating-point operands [such operations need to be rendered as discrete pixels, and should be rounded in such a way that round(x)-1 = round(x-1) for all x that fit within the range of +/- (2^31-1); even if such operations are rounded, they should use Floor(x+0.5), rather than round-to-nearest-even, so as to ensure the above property]
Incidentally, in C# a typecast from Double to Int using (type)expr notation uses round-to-zero semantics; the fact that this differs from the VB.NET behavior suggests that one or both languages is using its own conversion routines rather an explicit conversion operator included in the Framework. It would seem likely that the Framework should define a conversion operator? Does such an operator exist within the framework? What does it do? Is there a way to invoke it from C# and/or VB.NET?
After some searching, it seems that VB has no clean way of accomplishing that, short of writing an extension method.
The C# (int) cast translates directly into conv.i4 in IL. VB has no such operators, and no framework function seems to provide an alternative.
Usenet had an interesting discussion about this back in 2005 – of course a lot has changed since then but I think this still holds.
You can use the Math.Truncate method.
Calculates the integral part of a specified double-precision floating-point number.
For example:
Dim a As double = 1.6666666
Dim b As Integer = Math.Truncate(a) ' b = 1
I know this is an old case but I saw no one suggest the Math.Round() function.
Yes Math.Round takes a double and returns a double. However it returns a number that has been rounded to a whole number. It should easily and concisely convert to an integer using cInt. Would that suffice?
cInt(math.round(10000.54564)) ' = 10001
cInt(math.round(10000.49564)) ' = 10000
You may need extract the Int part of a float number:
float num = 12.234;
string toint = "" + num;
string auxil = toint.Split('.');
int newnum = Int.Parse(auxil[0]);
Related
I am using IsNumeric() function in my code to validate numbers.
IsNumeric(100) - true,
IsNumeric(-100) - true,
IsNumeric(+100) - true,
IsNumeric(100-) - true - I have doubt in this. (100-) Is this a valid number? IsNumeric () returns true to this value.
Dim latitude As String = "12.56346-"
If IsNumeric(latitude) Then
If (Convert.ToDouble(latitude) >= -90 And Convert.ToDouble(latitude) <= 90) Then
isValidLatitude.Text = "true"
Else
isValidLatitude.Text = "false"
End If
Else
isValidLatitude.Text = "false"
End If
Error while converting latitude to double
Input string was not in a correct format.
IsNumeric is from the Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace/dll, a bunch of helper stuff intended to help VB6 programmers get their arcane VB6 code /knowledge working on VB.NET
You'll note if you use other functions from the same dll such as Microsoft.VisualBasic.Conversion.Int(), or you use dedicated VB.NET converters such as CInt or CDbl these will also cope with a trailing minus sign and return a negative value
If you want to dispense with the old ways of VB6, use a numeric type's TryParse.. but all in, be consistent / if you use a function from Microsoft.VisualBasic to determine if a conversion can be made, use the vb conversion because within itself the package will be consistent but between Microsoft.VB and normal .net System there are some differences in behavior
Edit:
A couple of people have been wondering about the source code and how it uses TryParse, so why doesn't it work like using TryParse directly?
Microsoft.VisualBasic.Information.IsNumeric() uses Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.DoubleType.TryParse() to determine whether an expression is numeric. This DoubleType.TryParse is not the same as Double.TryParse - it is a helper method again in the VB namespace that specifically sets the NumberStyles.AllowTrailingSign flag among many other flags. When parsing the number (first as non currency related, using Double.Parse, then if it fails a second attempt is made using adjusted values for currency related tests) this AllowTrailingSign flag will be considered in conjunction with other regional number formatting rules in determining if the passed in value is numeric
You'll note that on a machine obeying a USA number formatting culture, a string of "(100$)" is also declared to be numeric but calling Double.TryParse("(100$)", x) will also return false. The VB helper methods here are being a lot more liberal in what they accept than the System methods, because they're telling the System methods to be more liberal than they are by default
As noted, I've always regarded the Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace as a bunch of helper methods intended to allow terrible old VB6 code to be pasted into VB.NET and work with minimal fiddling. I wouldn't advocate using it for new projects and I remove the reference when I work on VB.NET - using it to support the VB6 notions of "just sling anything in, of any type, and it'll probably figure it out and work.. and if it doesn't we can always on error resume next" should be discarded in favour of precise and accurate about the operations executed and their intent
Note: my previous answers were wrong about assuming it was a bug. As the answer of #Damien_The_Unbeliever states, this function tries to validate the string as a lot of data types. And actually, the value "100-" is a valid Decimal number. That's why it returns true (as it's a "valid" Decimal) but gives a exception when converting to Double (as it's not a valid Double). #Damien_The_Unbeliever really deserves your +1 for pointing that.
From the documentation (showing all the data types that IsNumeric tries to validate):
IsNumeric returns True if the data type of Expression is Boolean, Byte, Decimal, Double, Integer, Long, SByte, Short, Single, UInteger, ULong, or UShort. It also returns True if Expression is a Char, String, or Object that can be successfully converted to a number. Expression can contain non-numeric characters. IsNumeric returns True if Expression is a string that contains a valid hexadecimal or octal number. IsNumeric also returns True if Expression contains a valid numeric expression that begins with a + or - character or contains commas.
Also, #CaiusJard did a nice search and pointed out that inner methods use a NumberStyles.AllowTrailingSign option, which allows this behavior.
Ok, now to the solution:
Just use a TryParse method, from your desired data type (int, long, etc...). The cool thing is that it'll behaves exactly as you expect, and if the parsing is successful, we have the parsed value already available to use!
if (Int32.TryParse(value, out int number))
{
// String is a valid number, and is already parsed in the 'number' variable!
}
else
{
// String is not a valid number!
}
Solution's VB.Net version:
Dim value As String = "12.56346-"
Dim number As Double = 0
If Double.TryParse(value, number) Then
' String is a valid number, and is already parsed in the "number" variable!
isValidLatitude.Text = "true"
Else
' String is not a valid number!
isValidLatitude.Text = "false"
End If
IsNumeric answers a question no sane person wants to ask. As quoted by Vitox's answer:
IsNumeric returns True if the data type of Expression is Boolean, Byte, Decimal, Double, Integer, Long, SByte, Short, Single, UInteger, ULong, or UShort. It also returns True if Expression is a Char, String, or Object that can be successfully converted to a number.
Note, it doesn't tell you that the given string can be converted to all numeric types. It tells you that the string can be converted to at least one numeric type. And for bonus bad style points, of course, it doesn't tell you which types the string can be converted to.
Decimal.Parse("100-") will execute perfectly well and give you a Decimal containing a value of -100.
So, it's not a bug, it's a bad function that has been retained for backwards compatibility reasons. Nowadays, we know better, and that we want to test whether a string can be converted to a specific data type, for which the TryParse family of functions have been designed.
What is the difference between:
Dim a As Integer = CInt(2.2)
and
Dim a As Integer = Math.Round(2.2)
?
CInt returns an integer but will round the .5 to nearest even number so:
2 = CInt(2.5)
4 = CInt(3.5)
Are both true, which might not be what you want.
Math.Round can be told to round away from zero. But returns a double, so we still need to cast it
3 = CInt(Math.Round(2.5, MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero))
There is bigger differences in CInt(), Int() and Round()... and others.
Round has parameters of rounding, so it is flexible and user friendly. But it do not change variable type. No "type conversion".
Meanwhile CInt() is a bit cryptic as it rounds too. And it is doing "Type conversion" to integer.
2 = Int(2.555), 3 = CInt(2.555)
2 = Int(2.5), 2 = CInt(2.5)
Some documentation states:
When the fractional part of expression is exactly .5, CInt always rounds it to the nearest even number. For example, .5 rounds to 0, and 1.5 rounds to 2.
But I do not like that "exact 0.5", in real word it is "0.5000001"
So, doing integer math (like calculating bitmaps address Hi and Lo bytes) do not use CInt(). Use old school INT(). Until you get to negative numbers... see the fix() function.
If there is no need to convert type, use floor().
I think all this chaos of number conversion is for some sort of compatibility with some ancient software.
The difference between those two functions is that they do totally different things:
CInt converts to an Integer type
Math.Round rounds the value to the nearest Integer
Math.Round in this instance will get you 2.0, as specified by the MSDN documentation. You are also using the function incorrectly, see the MSDN link above.
Both will raise an Exception if conversion fails, you can use Try..Catch for this.
Side note: You're new to VB.NET, but you might want to try switching to C#. I find that it is a hybrid of VB.NET & C++ and it will be far easier for you to work with than VB.NET.
Please forgive me, I haven't used this site very much! I am working in Visual Studio with Visual Basic. I finished programming my project with Option Strict Off, then when I turned Option Strict on, I was alerted that this code was wrong:
Const TAX_Decimal As Decimal = 0.07
The explanation was that "Option Strict On disallows implicit conversions from 'Double' to 'Decimal'"
But I thought I had declared it as a decimal! It made me change it to:
Const TAX_Decimal As Decimal = CDec(0.07)
The only thing I did with this constant was multiply it by a decimal and saved it to a variable declared as a decimal!
Can someone tell me why this is happening?
Double is 8 bytes and Decimal is 16 bytes. Option Strict prevents from automatic type conversion. By default if you write a number with decimals in VB.NET it is considered as double and not decimal. For saying decimal you have to use some character to specify (I thing for decimal is m) so if you declare
Const VAR as decimal = 0.07m
then you wont require casting.
When the compiler sees a numeric literal, it selects a type based upon the size of the number, punctuation marks, and suffix (if any), and then translates the the sequence of characters in it to that type; all of this is done without regard for what the compiler is going to do with the number. Once this is done, the compiler will only allow the number to be used as its own type, explicitly cast to another type, or in the two cases defined below implicitly converted to another type.
If the number is interpreted as any integer type (int, long, etc.) the compiler will allow it to be used to initialize any integer type in which the number is representable, as well as any binary or decimal floating-point type, without regard for whether or not the number can be represented precisely in that type.
If the number is type Single [denoted by an f suffix], the compiler will allow it to be used to initialize a Double, without regard for whether the resulting Double will accurately represent the literal with which the Single was initialized.
Numeric literals of type Double [including a decimal point, but with no suffix] or Decimal [a "D" suffix not followed immediately by a plus or minus] cannot be used to initialize a variable of any other, even if the number would be representable precisely in the target type, or the result would be the target type's best representation of the numeric literal in question.
Note that conversions between type Decimal and the other floating-point types (double and float) should be avoided whenever possible, since the conversion methods are not very accurate. While there are many double values for which no exact Decimal representation exists, there is a wide numeric range in which Decimal values are more tightly packed than double values. One might expect that converting a double would choose the closest Decimal value, or at least one of the Decimal values which is between that number and the next higher or lower double value, but the normal conversion methods do not always do so. In some cases the result may be off by a significant margin.
If you ever find yourself having to convert Double to Decimal, you're probably doing something wrong. While there are some operations which are available on Double that are not available on Decimal, the act of converting between the two types means whatever Decimal result you end up with is apt to be less precise than if all computations had been done in Double`.
The problem is that the SqlDecimal datatype packs more bits than the Decimal datatype which is native to the CLR. So how does one map between the two in the most practical way. This wohn't work that well:
SqlDecimal x = ...
decimal z = x.value; // can overflow
To have more numbers pass one can strip trailing zeros. But if you accept the loss of precision that the conversion gives you one would expect there'd be a function to do this lossy conversion.
Is there? Or what would be best practices here?
I've already made a function which both crops and removes trailing zeroes to do the conversion but I'd rather use a standard .NET BCL function if one such exists.
Use SqlDecimal.Round with a precision that matches the .NET decimal type.
I am creating a WCF in vb.net inside VS 2010. I have a handful of properties that are currently bytes (0 - 255) and represent different test scores. Is it possible for me to create my own type based on this that will only allow values between 0 and 110? For example, if I have
Dim a as Byte
a = 256
I will get "Constant expression not representable in type 'Byte'." before the code is compiled. I want to have something like this for my own type so the below code would give me "Constant expression not representable in type 'myByte'."
Dim a as myByte
a = 110
You can only use predefined (native) types, as Byte, and implement some features, like overloading operators to check minimum and maximum values. However, not every operator can be overloaded, what, in this case, includes the assignement operator '='.
Check http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8edha89s%28v=vs.71%29.aspx and the tutorials if it helps somewhat.
To assign a value tp your type you can make use of properties or methods that set the value checking for boudaries and other conditions, perfectly doable.
But to define it as a native... negative, sir.
Nope, I don't think that's possible. You'll have to use a constructor to initialize your myByte instance and do the range check at runtime (not sure how useful that would be).