Is it somehow possible to generate an auto-property with the Roslyn SyntaxGenerator class (NOT SyntaxFactory)?
This:
var myProperty = generator.PropertyDeclaration("MyProperty", generator.TypeExpression(SpecialType.System_String), Accessibility.Public);
will generate:
public string MyProperty {
get {
}
set {
}
}
I would like to have:
public string MyProperty { get; set; }
Is this possible with some option? I found some solutions which uses SyntaxFactory, but i would like to use SyntaxGenerator.
I don't think that is possible.
If you take a look at the source for PropertyDeclaration you will notice, that unless the getter/setter is not declared or the property is abstract any getAccessorStatements/setAccessorStatements passed as null are set to an empty IEnumerable.
The generation of the accessors-statements then uses the AccessorDeclaration which will either return the accessors with a body (if the accessor is declared as null) or with a semicolon (if it is not null which is only possible for abstract properties as noted above).
There also seems to be an open issue on github on this.
Update 1
It seems like either my English is terribly awful, or people just don't give a sh... to understand what I'm asking about or simply look at the title of the post.
C#5 specification clearly states:
Because the backing field is inaccessible, it can be read and written
only through the property accessors, even within the containing type.
This means that automatically implemented read-only or write-only
properties do not make sense, and are disallowed.
public string MyProperty {get;} has no sense, yet it costs nothing for compiler to emit getter not even warring about lacking setter. Backing field will be initialized with a default value. What does it mean? It means that designers spent some effort to implement a verification, to introduce functionality that could be left out.
Let's now consider C#6:
In C#6 the initialization of auto-implemented properties was introduced.
public string FirstName { get; set; } = "Jane";
or
public string FirstName { get; } = "Jane";
In the latter case property can be set in a constructor as well:
public class Program
{
public string ImagePath { get; }
public static void Main()
{
}
public Program()
{
ImagePath = "";
}
}
But only in constructor of the class where property was declared. Derived classes cannot set property's value.
Now ask yourself what this property means, if it was not initialized in constructor:
property string My {get;}
This is a 100% equivalent of C#5 prohibited property. It has no sense.
But such declaration being invalid in C#5 became valid in C#6. However semantics didn't change at all: this property is useless without explicit initialization.
That's why I am asking:
Why not explicitly initialized readonly auto-implemented property is valid in c# 6?
What I expect to see as an answer:
Either debunking of my initial assumptions about changes in C#6
Or the explanation of how and why compiler designers changed their mind
about what makes sense, and what does not.
I find the answer It's by design to be completely irrelevant. It is just a fact. I look for reasons. I don't believe compiler designers decide on changes in behavior of compiler with just tossing the coin.
This is an example of good answer.
Original question
In VS2015 this code is compiled without errors:
public class Program
{
public string ImagePath { get; }
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
}
}
However, in VS2013 I get error:
Compilation error (line 5, col 28): 'Program.ImagePath.get' must
declare a body because it is not marked abstract or extern.
Automatically implemented properties must define both get and set
accessors.
I know about initializable auto implemented properties, and in case of VS2015 field gets default value, that is null here. But then it's interesting to know why this snippet was invalid in C# 5?
Initializable auto-implemented readonly property left without explicit initialization seems to me a bit ODD. It is likely a mistake rather than intention. I'd personally prefer compiler to require explicit initialization in this case:
public string ImagePath { get; } = default(string);
Ok, I know that such property can be also assigned in constructor:
public class Program
{
public string ImagePath { get; }
public static void Main()
{
}
public Program()
{
ImagePath = "";
DoIt();
}
public void DoIt()
{
//ImagePath = "do it";
}
}
public class My : Program
{
public My()
{
//ImagePath = "asdasd";
}
}
But if compiler can check that local variable is not initialized, the same is possible for the property.
So why is it as it is?
The compiler is telling you that automatic properties must have both accessors defined. For example, you could fix the error with
public string ImagePath { get; private set; }
assuming that you do not intend the property to be settable outside the class.
As to why you have to declare a setter or manually implement the property -- well, what good would be a property that you can read from, but will always return the default value of its type since there is no way to set it? Conversely, what good would be a property you can write to but can neither read from nor hook into its setter?
C# 6.0 gives you the option of having write-once, read many auto-properties; this is a huge difference as the value can be arbitrarily chosen, allowing you convenient syntax for properties with immutable values.
I have no idea why your question have been down voted. This is interesting observation but please keep in mind that it is not a breaking change - it is just 'new functionality' that is 'leftover' of other functionality - initialization of auto-implemented properties.
That means it had no sense previously, but now it has.
Moreover, I think it has always had sense. E.g. when you have some base class or interface, for example
interface IPerson
{
int Age { get; }
}
Some day you may want to implement null-object pattern where the age is irrelevant. In c#5 you have to write public int Age { get { return 0; } }, while in c#6 you can simply do public int Age { get; } or even transform interface to abstract class changing only its definition from interface to abstract class.
I have the following code:
public class Parent
{
public string MyField { get; set; }
}
public class Child : Parent
{
protected new int MyField { get; set; }
}
I try and access this with:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Child child = new Child();
child.MyField = "something";
}
Visual studio 2008 compiles this without comment, but under Mono (2.4.2, Ubuntu) I get the error message
'HideTest.Child.MyField' is inaccessible due to its protection level (CS0122)
Is one implementation or the other more compliant with the standard here?
Edit: Thanks to all the people who have pointed out the bad design. Unfortunately it's a third-party library and changing it significantly isn't practical.
From ECMA-334 (the C# spec) §10.7.1.2 :
A declaration of a new member hides an inherited member only within the scope of the new member.
You can see this behavior by running this test on Microsoft's implementation.
using System;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace ScratchPad
{
[TestFixture]
public class Class1
{
[Test]
public void InheritanceHiding()
{
var b = new Base();
var d = new Derived();
var baseSomeProperty = b.SomeProperty;
var derivedSomeProperty = d.SomeProperty;
b.GetSomeProperty();
d.GetSomeProperty();
}
}
public class Base
{
public string SomeProperty
{
get
{
Console.WriteLine("Getting Base.SomeProperty");
return "Base.SomeProperty";
}
}
public string GetSomeProperty()
{
return SomeProperty;
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
protected new int SomeProperty
{
get
{
Console.WriteLine("Getting Derived.SomeProperty");
return 3; //Determined by random roll of the dice.
}
}
public new int GetSomeProperty()
{
return SomeProperty;
}
}
}
Which will output:
Getting Base.SomeProperty //(No Controversy)
Getting Base.SomeProperty //(Because you're calling from public scope and the new member is in protected scope, there is no hiding)
Getting Base.SomeProperty //(No Controversy)
Getting Derived.SomeProperty //(Now because you're calling from protected scope, you get the protected member).
So the property you're accessing from your Main() should be the base class property (as it is in MS.NET), not the derived property (as in Mono), because the new derived member only hides the 'old' base member in protected scope.
Mono is doing something wrong here according to the spec.
Jason's answer is correct but he asks for a justification of this behaviour. (Namely that a hiding method is only hiding within the scope of the hiding method.)
There are a number of possible justifications. One in particular is that this is yet another way in which the design of C# mitigates the Brittle Base Class problem.
FooCorp makes Foo.DLL:
public class Foo
{
public object Blah() { ... }
}
BarCorp makes Bar.DLL:
public class Bar : Foo
{
// stuff not having to do with Blah
}
ABCCorp makes ABC.EXE:
public class ABC
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine((new Bar()).Blah());
}
}
Now BarCorp says "You know, in our internal code we can guarantee that Blah only ever returns string thanks to our knowledge of our derived implementation. Let's take advantage of that fact in our internal code."
public class Bar : Foo
{
internal new string Blah()
{
object r = base.Blah();
Debug.Assert(r is string);
return (string)r;
}
}
ABCCorp picks up a new version of Bar.DLL which has a bunch of bug fixes that are blocking them. Should their build break because they have a call to Blah, an internal method on Bar? Of course not. That would be terrible. This change is a private implementation detail that should be invisible outside of Bar.DLL.
In general, the .NET implementation of C# should probably be considered "canon". From the documentation on the new Modifier:
A constant, field, property, or type introduced in a class or struct hides all base class members with the same name.
... it seems like the Mono implementation is more correct given this definition. It should be hiding the implementation of MyField in the Parent class, and therefore it should only be accessible with the int MyField signature from the Child class.
Prelude: This code is crazy. If you actually have code in your app like this, fix it now. Either make them both protected or both public!
Regarding the error: The CLR has a lot of really strange 'edge case' rules in it for dealing with things like this. The best place to look for this kind of stuff is usually Eric Lippert's blog.
In saying that though, it looks like mono is actually doing the more sensible thing here in my opinion.
On second look, the C# one makes more sense once you factor in the 'behind the scenes' stuff.
Properties are not "first class" in MSIL. A property in C# or VB is just compiled down to a get and set method (the compiler also sticks an attribute somewhere for bookkeeping).
int MyField { get; set; } will actually produce MSIL for two methods:
void set_MyField(int value);
int get_MyField();
Now, given that your new method has a different type, you'll end up with the following 2 setter methods.
void set_MyField(int value);
void set_MyField(string value);
When you call x.MyField = "string" you're just calling one of those methods. This then boils down to a normal method overloading scenario. It's perfectly valid to have two methods with the same name that take different parameters, so the compiler will just select the string one and carry on it's merry way.
So yeah. The C# one makes sense if you know how the internals work, the Mono one makes more sense if you don't.
Which one is "more correct"? Ask Eric Lippert :-)
Just adding my 2 cents) That's a Mono bug, here is the description.
IMHO the difference is that MS.NET recognize the type string for MyField and sets the value of Parent property and in Mono in just tries to access MyField in Child class.
You are making something that's available through the base class unavailable through the child. You can try that, but it won't actually do anything. People can always just do this:
Parent child = new Child();
and call the method. So if you want the field to be hidden, declare a new one and keep the inherited one public.
Sometimes you have a private field that backs a property, you only ever want to set the field via the property setter so that additional processing can be done whenever the field changes. The problem is that it's still easy to accidentally bypass the property setter from within other methods of the same class and not notice that you've done so. Is there a way in C# to work around this or a general design principle to avoid it?
IMHO, it is not used, because:
The class must trust itself
If your class gets as large that one part does not know the other, it should be divided.
If the logic behind the property is slightly more complex, consider to encapsulate it in an own type.
I'd consider this a nasty hack and try to avoid it if possible, but...
You can mark the backing field as obsolete so that the compiler will generate a warning when you try to access it, and then suppress that warning for the property getter/setter.
The warning codes that you'd need to suppress are CS0612 for the plain Obsolete attribute and CS0618 if the attribute has a custom message.
[Obsolete("Please don't touch the backing field!")]
private int _backingField;
public int YourProperty
{
#pragma warning disable 612, 618
get { return _backingField; }
set { _backingField = value; }
#pragma warning restore 612, 618
}
There's no inbuilt way to do what you want to do, but by the sounds of things you need another layer of abstraction between your class and that value.
Create a separate class and put the item in there, then your outer class contains the new class, and you can only access it through its properties.
No, there isn't. I'd quite like this myself - something along the lines of:
public string Name
{
private string name; // Only accessible within the property
get { return name; /* Extra processing here */ }
set { name = value; /* Extra processing here */ }
}
I think I first suggested this about 5 years ago on the C# newsgroups... I don't expect to ever see it happen though.
There are various wrinkles to consider around serialization etc, but I still think it would be nice. I'd rather have automatically implemented readonly properties first though...
You CAN do this, by using a closure over a local in the constructor (or other initialisation function). But it requires significantly more work that the helper class approach.
class MyClass {
private Func<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldGetter;
private Action<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldSetter;
private Foo ReallyPrivateBackingFieldProperty {
get { return reallyPrivateFieldGetter(); }
set { reallyPrivateFieldSetter(value); }
}
public MyClass() {
Foo reallyPrivateField = 0;
reallyPrivateFieldGetter = () => { return reallyPrivateField; }
reallyPrivateFieldSetter = v => { reallyPrivateField = v; };
}
}
I suspect that the underlying field type Foo will need to be a reference class, so the two closures are created over the same object.
There is no such provisioning in C#.
However I would name private variables differently (e.g. m_something or just _something) so it is easier to spot it when it is used.
You can put all of your private fields into a nested class and expose them via public properties. Then within your class, you instantiate that nested class and use it. This way those private fields are not accessible as they would have been if they were part of your main class.
public class A
{
class FieldsForA
{
private int number;
public int Number
{
get
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
return number;
}
set
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
number = value;
}
}
}
FieldsForA fields = new FieldsForA();
public int Number
{
get{ return fields.Number;}
set{ fields.Number = value;}
}
}
It just provides a level of obstruction. The underlying problem of accessing private backing fields is still there within the nested class. However, the code within class A can't access those private fields of nested class FieldForA. It has to go through the public properties.
Perhaps a property backing store, similar to the way WPF stores properties?
So, you could have:
Dictionary<string,object> mPropertyBackingStore = new Dictionary<string,object> ();
public PropertyThing MyPropertyThing
{
get { return mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] as PropertyThing; }
set { mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] = value; }
}
You can do all the pre-processing you want now, safe in the knowledge that if anyone did access the variable directly, it would have been really really hard compared to the property accessor.
P.S. You may even be able to use the dependency property infrastructure from WPF...
P.P.S. This is obviously going to incur the cost of casting, but it depends on your needs - if performance is critical, perhaps this isn't the solution for you.
P.P.P.S Don't forget to initialise the backing store! (;
EDIT:
In fact, if you change the value property stored to a property storage object (using the Command pattern for example), you could do your processing in the command object...just a thought.
Can't do this in standard C#, however you could
define a custom attribute say OnlyAccessFromProperty
write your code like
[OnlyAccessFromProperty(Name)]
String name
Name
{
get{return name;}
}
etc …
Then write a custom rule for FxCop (or another checker)
Add FxCop to your build system so if your custom rule find an error the build is failed.
Do we need a set of standard custom rules/attributes to enforce common design patens like this without the need to extend C#
C# has no language feature for this. However, you can rely on naming conventions, similar to languages which have no private properties at all. Prefix your more private variable names with _p_, and you'll be pretty sure that you don't type it accidentally.
I don't know C# but in Java you may have a base class with only private instance variables and public setters and getters (should return a copy of the instance var.) and do all other in an inherited class.
A "general design principle" would be "use inheritance".
There is no build in solution in C#, but I think your problem can be solved by good OO design:
Each class should have a single purpose. So try to extract the logic around your field into a class as small as possible. This reduces the code where you can access the field by accident. If you do such errors by accident, your class is probably to big.
Often interface are good to restrict access to only a certain "subset" of an object. If that's appropriate for your case depends on your setting of course. More details about the work to be done would help to provide a better answer.
You say that you do additional processing. Presumably this would be detectable under the correct conditions. My solution, then, would be to create unit tests that implement conditions such that if the backing field is used directly the test will fail. Using these tests you should be able to ensure that your code correctly uses the property interface as long as the tests pass.
This has the benefit that you don't need to compromise your design. You get the safety of the unit tests to ensure that you don't accidently make breaking changes and you capture the understanding of how the class works so that others who come along later can read your tests as "documentation."
Wrap it in a class? The property thing is a bit like that anyway, associating data with methods - the "Encapsulation" they used to rave about...
class MyInt
{
private int n;
public static implicit operator MyInt(int v) // Set
{
MyInt tmp = new MyInt();
tmp.n = v;
return tmp;
}
public static implicit operator int(MyInt v) // Get
{
return v.n;
}
}
class MyClass
{
private MyInt myint;
public void func()
{
myint = 5;
myint.n = 2; // Can't do this.
myint = myint + 5 * 4; // Works just like an int.
}
}
I'm sure I'm missing something? It seems too normal...
BTW I do like the closures one, superbly mad.
My favorite solution to this (and what I follow) is to name private backing fields that are never intended to be used directly with a leading underscore, and private fields that are intended to be used without the underscore (but still lowercase).
I hate typing the underscore, so if I ever start to access a variable that starts with the underscore, I know somethings wrong - I'm not supposed to be directly accessing that variable. Obviously, this approach still doesn't ultimately stop you from accessing that field, but as you can see from the other answers, any approach that does is a work around and/or hardly practical.
Another benefit of using the underscore notation is that when you use the dropdown box to browse your class, it puts all of your private, never-to-be-used backing fields all in one place at the top of the list, instead of allowing them to be mixed in with their respective properties.
As a design practice, you could use a naming convention for "private properties" that's different from normal public members - for instance, using m_ItemName for private items instead of ItemName for public ones.
If you're using the C# 3.0 compiler you can define properties which have compiler-generated backing fields like this:
public int MyInt { get; set; }
That will mean there is only one way to access the property, sure it doesn't mean you can only access the field but it does mean that there's nothing but the property to access.
I agree with the general rule that the class should trust itself (and by inference anybody coding within the class).
It is a shame that the field is exposed via intellisense.
Sadly placing [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] does not work within that class (or indeed the assembly(1))
In Visual C#, EditorBrowsableAttribute does not suppress members from a class in the same assembly.
If you really do wish to solve this aspect of it the the following class may be useful and makes the intent clear as well.
public sealed class TriggerField<T>
{
private T data;
///<summary>raised *after* the value changes, (old, new)</summary>
public event Action<T,T> OnSet;
public TriggerField() { }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(T initial) { this.data=initial; }
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet) { this.OnSet += onSet; }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet, T initial) : this(onSet)
{
this.data=initial;
}
public T Value
{
get { return this.data;}
set
{
var old = this.data;
this.data = value;
if (this.OnSet != null)
this.OnSet(old, value);
}
}
}
Allowing you to (somewhat verbosely) use it like so:
public class Foo
{
private readonly TriggerField<string> flibble = new TriggerField<string>();
private int versionCount = 0;
public Foo()
{
flibble.OnSet += (old,current) => this.versionCount++;
}
public string Flibble
{
get { return this.flibble.Value; }
set { this.flibble.Value = value; }
}
}
alternatively you can go for a less verbose option but accessing Flibble is by the not idiomatic bar.Flibble.Value = "x"; which would be problematic in reflective scenarios
public class Bar
{
public readonly TriggerField<string> Flibble;
private int versionCount = 0;
public Bar()
{
Flibble = new TriggerField<string>((old,current) => this.versionCount++);
}
}
or solution if you look at the community content!
The new Lazy class in .net 4.0
provides support for several common
patterns of lazy initialization
In my experience this is the most common reason I wish to wrap a field in a private properly, so solves a common case nicely. (If you are not using .Net 4 yet you can just create your own “Lazy” class with the same API as the .Net 4 version.)
See this and this and this for details of using the Lazy class.
Use the "veryprivate" construct type
Example:
veryprivate void YourMethod()
{
// code here
}
Is there a way to stipulate that the clients of a class should specify a value for a set of properties in a class. For example (see below code), Can i stipulate that "EmploymentType" property in Employment class should be specified at compile time? I know i can use parametrized constructor and such. I am specifically looking for outputting a custom warning or error during compile time. Is that possible?
public class Employment
{
public EmploymentType EmploymentType {get; set;}
}
public enum EmploymentType
{
FullTime = 1,
PartTime= 2
}
public class Client
{
Employment e = new Employment();
// if i build the above code, i should get a error or warning saying you should specify value for EmploymentType
}
As cmsjr stated what you need to do is this:
public class Employment
{
public Employment(EmploymentType employmentType)
{
this.EmploymentType = employmentType;
}
public EmploymentType EmploymentType { get; set; }
}
This will force callers to pass in the value at creation like this:
Employment e = new Employment(EmploymentType.FullTime);
In the situation where you need to have a default constructor (like serialization) but you still want to enforce the rule then you would need some sort of state validation. For instance anytime you attempt to perform an operation on the Employment class you can have it check for a valid state like this:
public EmploymentType? EmploymentType { get; set; } // Nullable Type
public void PerformAction()
{
if(this.Validate())
// Perform action
}
protected bool Validate()
{
if(!EmploymentType.HasValue)
throw new InvalidOperationException("EmploymentType must be set.");
}
If you're looking throw custom compiler warnings, this is not exactly possible. I asked a similar question here Custom Compiler Warnings
You could achieve what you want to do by not having a default constructor, and instead defining a constructor that takes employment type as an argument. If someone attempted to instantiate the class using a parameter-less constructor, they would get a compile error.
EDIT code sample
public Employment(EmploymentType eType)
{
this.EmploymentType = eType;
}
OO principles dictate that an object should never be in an invalid state. So this should be a constructor parameter.
There is no way to indicate that a property is required at compile time.
You mentioned in your original post that you already know about doing this with constructors, which is definitely the right way to do it. I don't believe there's going to be any way to do what you want, even with attributes (which is normally how you would manipulate compiler warnings, etc). Since the object could be created and then passed to another method to set the parameter, it's not necessarily as obvious as "client has to specify value".
You could try and create a custom FxCop or VSTS static analysis rule, but I don't think you'll be able to do this with just the C# compiler.
Interface Icontrol
' Declare an interface.
Property MustHave() As String
End Interface
Then in your user control include
Public Class mycontrol
Inherits System.Web.UI.UserControl
Implements Icontrol
It makes this property required