This is a free sample of a book that I have been working on with my coauthor Jamie King. As of March 2008, the full book is not yet available. However, this sample covers C# 3.0 fundamentals, and provides a full grounding in C# 3.0 Query Expressions.
It's become more common for authors to offer a few pages or sometimes a chapter of their text to the public as a means of marketing. Our aim is to not only provide a sample, but also a useful stand-alone text. By itself, this sample provides any C# 2.0 programmer a foundation in C# 3.0.
This is intended to be a useful mini-book on its own, not just a teaser: it's 239 pages long and includes 82 exercises and solutions. The full book is filled with many more exercises and solutions.
The full text includes more material from Query Expressions chapter. It also includes additional chapters that cover LINQ to SQL and LINQ to XML, respectively.
We hope you find this sample useful. If you wish to purchase the full text, you may do so when the full book is released; watch this blog and the website www.MindView.net for further details.
Remember that this is a preview, and you will see items that have not yet been completed. The finished work will fix all such errata.
is no longer functional. Which is terrible, because I downloaded the sample chapter, printed it, enjoyed it, learned a bunch, and then mislaid the paper copy as well as the electronic copy. And now it can't be re-downloaded! Please replace it?
I have been reading your C# Query Expressions preview release (PDF) and think it is excellent. I'm not sure how to put this but a quality of all your books that I have gotten around to reading, is that they seem to be really well thought out; at the other extreme are books that seem to either contain thin reworking of an existing spec or other documentation from the web or else that start well but then lose the train of thought-as if they don't really have a feeling for what they want to say or talk about.
Anyway, in the interest of trying to make this new book as good as it can be, I make the following very small editorial comment which you are more than welcome to ignore: I have gotten to the section on anonymous types which I have never encountered before. I thought it was not as good as I am used to you writing. I think it needs more of an introduction/explanation then what you give it. What you have there is fine, I just think it needs some more at the start of the section, that's all.