ja, i think I do understand this a little better now. Thanks


>>ooohhhh keyyyyyy
>>
>>Can Someone explain that one to me?
>>
>>You are correct the design plattform does not show an error anymore. I'll have to test the whole code now to see if I run into any other errors.
>>
>>But I don't understand that.
>>
>>I know that the "(of T)" expects a type (such as integer, varchar, etc...
>>
>>since "T" is not a type I understood the occurance of the error - just didn't know how to fix it.
>>
>>But all you did was to add another "(Of T)" - now i am defently lost.
>>
>>I was already way lost before - but now ... lol
>
>You're right that "(Of T)" in VB or "< T >" in C#, tells the the compiler to expect a type. However, you hadn't told the method to expect the type, and it was only "mentioned" in the parameter list, so the compiler didn't know what to expect and thought that type T was undefined. It seems a bit redundant to have to specify T in both places and a bit silly that the compiler couldn't infer that, but that's the way it is with generics.
>
>So, the first use of "(Of T)" tells the method to expect a type T, whereas the second use of it, tells the method which parameter is going to make use of the type T:
>
>Public Shared Function ToDataTable(Of T)(data As IList(Of T)) As DataTable
>
>>Thank you much for that help!
>
>You're welcome! I hope the above explanation makes sense. I might have caught the missing "(Of T)" earlier if I knew VB syntax better. <g>
>
>~~Bonnie