Develop Reference

Is it possible to have method only accessible after certain conditions are met?

I'm trying to make a method, MethodA, only accessible when bool, executable, is true. Otherwise an other method, MethodB, is accessible. For example:
private bool executable = true;
public int MethodA(); <-- // Is accessible from outside of the class because executable is true
public string MethodB() <-- // Is not accessible because executable is true
The main reason I'm trying to do this is because the 2 methods return 2 different types. So my question is, is this even possible?

Option #1
You may be able to get what you want using Polymorphism and Generics. This would also allow you to add additional method strategies if needed.
public interface IMethodStrategy<out T>
{
T DoSomething();
}
public class MethodOneStrategy : IMethodStrategy<string>
{
public string DoSomething()
{
return "This strategy returns a string";
}
}
public class MethodTwoStrategy : IMethodStrategy<int>
{
public int DoSomething()
{
return 100; // this strategy returns an int
}
}
// And you would use it like so...
static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool executable = true;
object result = null;
if (executable)
{
MethodOneStrategy methodA = new MethodOneStrategy();
result = methodA.DoSomething();
}
else
{
MethodTwoStrategy methodB = new MethodTwoStrategy();
result = methodB.DoSomething();
}
}
Option #2
Another option could be a simple proxy method to wrap the worker methods.
// proxy class to wrap actual method call with proxy call
public class MethodProxy
{
public object DoMethodWork(bool executable)
{
if (executable)
{
return MethodA();
}
else
{
return MethodB();
}
}
private int MethodA()
{
return 100; // returns int type
}
private string MethodB()
{
return "this method returns a string";
}
}
// used like so
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var methodProxy = new MethodProxy();
object result = methodProxy.DoMethodWork(true);
}

Use conditional compilation for this.
#if RELEASE
public string MethodB() ...
#endif
Although I have my doubts about whether you need this or not. Your rationale doesn't make much sense.
You can use different Build Configurations to manage your conditional compile symbols.

if(executable)
MethodA();
else
MethodB();
OR
if(executable)
MethodA();
MethodB();

not entirely sure what you are trying to do but this could be one way, probably not the most efficient way but could work depending on what you are trying to do?
public int MethodA(executable)
{
if(executable = true)
{
//do stuff
}
else
{
return -1;
}
}
public String MethodB(executable)
{
if(executable = false)
{
//do stuff
}
else
{
String error = "MethodB cannot be used right now";
return error;
}
}

Cannot convert from method group to Int32

I want my small math program to look really sleek, and by this I mean under the Main method I have the following methods:
Greet()
UserInput1()
UserInput2()
Result()
In Greet() I just say "HI", in UserInput1() I want to collect the first number, in UserInput2() I want to collect the second number, and in Result() I want to print the result of UserInput1 + UserInput2. I can collect the number in UserInput 1 and 2 but I can’t seem to send them to Result() without assigning values to them under the Main() function.
namespace HelloWorld
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Greet();
firstNumber();
secondNumber();
result(firstNumber, secondNumber);
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static void Greet()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, pls insert two numbers");
}
public static int firstNumber()
{
int num01 = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
return num01;
}
public static int secondNumber()
{
int num02 = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
return num02;
}
public static void result( int num01, int num02)
{
Console.WriteLine(num01 + num02);
}
}
}

change this:
result(firstNumber, secondNumber);
to this:
result(firstNumber(), secondNumber());
and remove the calls to the 2 methods in the two lines above.
To call a method without parameters, you need the parentheses without content.

Cannot convert from method group to int
This error message occurs when you attempt to take a method (without invocation) and pass it as a type. The result method is expecting two parameters of type int, but you're attempting to pass it the method, rather than the result of the method invocation.
You need to store the results in a variable, or invoke the methods with the ():
Like this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Greet();
var first = firstNumber();
var second = secondNumber();
result(first , second );
Console.ReadKey();
}
or this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Greet();
result(firstNumber(), secondNumber());
Console.ReadKey();
}

Call the method like the following, So that the method result will be called with output from the firstNumber() and secondNumber() as well :
result(firstNumber(),secondNumber());
Few more suggestions:
Make the method Greet() to a re-usable one by passing appropriate message and then display it. so that you can use the same for all display operations. the signature of the method will be:
public static void Greet(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
The method Convert.ToInt32() will convert the given input to an integer value only if the input is convertible. else it will throws FormatException. So i prefer you to use int.TryParse for this purpose. Which will help you to determine whether the conversion is success or not. so the Method signature for firstNumber() will be like the following:
public static int firstNumber()
{
int num01=0;
if(!int.TryParse(Console.ReadLine(),out num01))
{
Greet("Invalid input");
}
return num01;
}
Hope that you will change the secondNumber() as well

C# Use int constants vs Enums without cast

I have some int constants grouped in several Enum, like:
enum myEnum{
OBJECT_A = 10, OBJECT_B = 13 };
Now I have several functions which take this Enums and do something, like:
void myfunc(myEnum e)
{ .... }
In my code, I need to use myfunc in both these two ways:
myfunc(myEnum.OBJECT_A);
myfunc(13);
This gives an error because ints aren't casted to Enum implicitly.
What do you recommend as a best practice to do this preserving readability of the code?
An obvious solution is to use myfunc((myEnum)13); but this is boring because one needs to cast the int every time and the code gets heavy.
So far what I did is (avoiding enums at all):
using EChannelInt = System.Int32;
public static class EChannel
{
public static readonly int CH_CONNECTION = 10;
public static readonly int CH_DATA = 50;
}
public void doit(EChannelInt ch)
{ .... }
doit(EChannel.CH_DATA);
doit(10);
which works, but I don't like it very much because it seems like a "trick" or renaming thigs. What do you suggest? Perhaps "implicit operator" may be useful?

You can overload myFunc:
void myFunc(int i)
{
myFunc((myEnum)i);
}

You can use type-safe-enum pattern and you can override the implicit cast operator.
public class EChannel
{
public int Value {get; private set;};
public static readonly EChannel CH_CONNECTION = new EChannel(10);
public static readonly EChannel CH_DATA = new EChannel(50);
private EChannel(int value)
{
Value = value;
}
public static implicit operator EChannel(int a)
{
EChannel eChannel = null;
switch (a) // this need to be changed to something more light
{
case 10:
eChannel = CH_CONNECTION;
break;
case 50:
eChannel = CH_DATA;
break;
default:
throw new Exception("Constant don't exists");
}
return eChannel;
}
}
And you use it like this
public void doit(EChannel ch)
{ .... }
doit(EChannel.CH_DATA);
doit(10);

How about an overload?
void myfunc(int i)
{
myfunc((myEnum)i);
}
(If you don't have control of the class, you can do it as an extension method.)

I would stick with the enumeration values as much as possible and only cast to int in a narrow scope when absolutely necessary (if at all).
However, if you insist on mixing integers and enumeration values then you should consider defining the enum members from the integers so that they are guaranteed to be consistent.
Example:
public static class EChannel
{
public const int CH_CONNECTION = 10;
}
public enum myEnum
{
CH_CONNECTION = EChannel.CH_CONNECTION
}

Ref in async Task

How I can to pass a reference as a parameter to Async method in Windows Store App ? I'm looking for something like this:
var a = DoThis(ref obj.value);
public async Task DoThis(ref int value)
{
value = 10;
}
But error:
Async methods cannot have ref or out parameters
Has any another way?
Note:I need to pass exactly obj.value. This method would be used by different types of objects, by same type of objects, by one object, but I will pass obj.val_1, obj.val_2 or obj.val_10. All values will be same type (for ex string)

If you don't care about a little overhead and possibly prolonged lifetime of your objects, you could emulate the ref behavior by passing a setter and a getter method to the function, like this:
public async Task DoStuff(Func<int> getter, Action<int> setter)
{
var value1 = getter();
await DoSomeOtherAsyncStuff();
setter(value1 * value1);
}
And call it like this:
await DoStuff(() => obj.Value, x => obj.Value = x);

You could directly pass the object itself and set the value of the corresponding property inside the method:
var a = DoThis(obj);
public async Task DoThis(SomeObject o)
{
o.value = 10;
}
And if you do not have such object simply write one and have the async method take that object as parameter:
public class SomeObject
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}

You can always use the Task<> class and return the desired value. Then Your code would look something like:
var a = DoThis(obj.value);
obj.value = a.Result;
public async Task<int> DoThis(int value)
{
int result = value + 10; //compute the resulting value
return result;
}
EDIT
Ok, the other way to go with this that I can think of is encapsulating the update of the given object's member in a method and then passing an action invoking this method as the task's argument, like so:
var a = DoThis(() => ChangeValue(ref obj.value));
public void ChangeValue(ref int val)
{
val = 10;
}
public async Task DoThis(Action act)
{
var t = new Task(act);
t.Start();
await t;
}
As far as I tested it the change was made in the child thread, but still it's effect was visible in the parent thread. Hope this helps You.

You can't do this as you have it (as you know). So, a few work arounds:
You can do this by passing the initial object since it will be a reference type
var a = DoThis(obj);
public async Task DoThis(object obj) //replace the object with the actual object type
{
obj.value = 10;
}
EDIT
Based upon your comments, create an interface and have your classes implement it (providing it's always the same type you want to pass). Then you can pass the interface which is shared (maybe over kill, depends on your needs, or even unrealistic amount of work).
Or, provide a base class with the property! (I don't like this suggestion but since you're asking for something which can't be done it may suffice although I don't recommend it).
An example of the interface is here (not using what you have, but close enough using a Colsone App)
using System;
namespace InterfacesReferenceTypes
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass mc = new MyClass();
DoThis(mc);
Console.WriteLine(mc.Number);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void DoThis(IDemo id)
{
id.Number = 10;
}
}
class MyClass : IDemo
{
//other props and methods etc
public int Number { get; set; }
}
interface IDemo
{
int Number { get; set; }
}
}
EDIT2
After next comments, you will have to still use an interface, but re assign the value afterwards. I'm sure there is a better way to do this, but this works:
using System.Text;
namespace InterfacesRerefenceTypes
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass mc = new MyClass();
Console.WriteLine(mc.Number);
mc.val1 = 3;
mc.val2 = 5;
mc.Number = mc.val2;
DoThis(mc);
mc.val2 = mc.Number;
Console.WriteLine(mc.val2);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void DoThis(IDemo id)
{
id.Number = 15;
}
}
class MyClass : IDemo
{
public int val1 { get; set; }
public int val2 { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
}
interface IDemo
{
int Number { get; set; }
}
}

Call one constructor from another

I have two constructors which feed values to readonly fields.
public class Sample
{
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
_intField = i;
}
public Sample(int theInt) => _intField = theInt;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
One constructor receives the values directly, and the other does some calculation and obtains the values, then sets the fields.
Now here's the catch:
I don't want to duplicate the
setting code. In this case, just one
field is set but of course there may
well be more than one.
To make the fields readonly, I need
to set them from the constructor, so
I can't "extract" the shared code to
a utility function.
I don't know how to call one
constructor from another.
Any ideas?

Like this:
public Sample(string str) : this(int.Parse(str)) { }

If what you want can't be achieved satisfactorily without having the initialization in its own method (e.g. because you want to do too much before the initialization code, or wrap it in a try-finally, or whatever) you can have any or all constructors pass the readonly variables by reference to an initialization routine, which will then be able to manipulate them at will.
public class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue) => intField = newValue;
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt) => setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}

Before the body of the constructor, use either:
: base (parameters)
: this (parameters)
Example:
public class People: User
{
public People (int EmpID) : base (EmpID)
{
// Add more statements here.
}
}

I am improving upon supercat's answer. I guess the following can also be done:
class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty
{
get { return _intField; }
}
void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue)
{
//Do some stuff here based upon the necessary initialized variables.
intField = newValue;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString, bool? doStuff = true)
{
//Initialization of some necessary variables.
//==========================================
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
// ................
// .......................
//==========================================
if (!doStuff.HasValue || doStuff.Value == true)
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt): this(theInt, false) //"false" param to avoid setupStuff() being called two times
{
setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
}

Here is an example that calls another constructor, then checks on the property it has set.
public SomeClass(int i)
{
I = i;
}
public SomeClass(SomeOtherClass soc)
: this(soc.J)
{
if (I==0)
{
I = DoSomethingHere();
}
}

Yeah, you can call other method before of the call base or this!
public class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException(int number) : base(ConvertToString(number))
{
}
private static string ConvertToString(int number)
{
return number.toString()
}
}

Constructor chaining i.e you can use "Base" for Is a relationship and "This" you can use for same class, when you want call multiple Constructor in single call.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass():this(10)
{
}
public BaseClass(int val)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new BaseClass();
ReadLine();
}
}

When you inherit a class from a base class, you can invoke the base class constructor by instantiating the derived class
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
}
class der : sample
{
public int a;
public int b;
public der(int value1,int value2) : base(50)
{
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
der obj = new der(10,20);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.x);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.a);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.b);
}
}
Output of the sample program is
50 10 20
You can also use this keyword to invoke a constructor from another constructor
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
public sample(sample obj) : this(obj.x)
{
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
sample s = new sample(20);
sample ss = new sample(s);
System.Console.WriteLine(ss.x);
}
}
The output of this sample program is
20

Error handling and making your code reusable is key. I added string to int validation and it is possible to add other types if needed. Solving this problem with a more reusable solution could be this:
public class Sample
{
public Sample(object inputToInt)
{
_intField = objectToInt(inputToInt);
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
public static int objectToInt(object inputToInt)
{
switch (inputToInt)
{
case int inputInt:
return inputInt;
break;
case string inputString:
if (!int.TryParse(inputString, out int parsedInt))
{
throw new InvalidParameterException($"The input {inputString} could not be parsed to int");
}
return parsedInt;
default:
throw new InvalidParameterException($"Constructor do not support {inputToInt.GetType().Name}");
break;
}
}

Please, please, and pretty please do not try this at home, or work, or anywhere really.
This is a way solve to a very very specific problem, and I hope you will not have that.
I'm posting this since it is technically an answer, and another perspective to look at it.
I repeat, do not use it under any condition. Code is to run with LINQPad.
void Main()
{
(new A(1)).Dump();
(new B(2, -1)).Dump();
var b2 = new B(2, -1);
b2.Increment();
b2.Dump();
}
class A
{
public readonly int I = 0;
public A(int i)
{
I = i;
}
}
class B: A
{
public int J;
public B(int i, int j): base(i)
{
J = j;
}
public B(int i, bool wtf): base(i)
{
}
public void Increment()
{
int i = I + 1;
var t = typeof(B).BaseType;
var ctor = t.GetConstructors().First();
ctor.Invoke(this, new object[] { i });
}
}
Since constructor is a method, you can call it with reflection. Now you either think with portals, or visualize a picture of a can of worms. sorry about this.

In my case, I had a main constructor that used an OracleDataReader as an argument, but I wanted to use different query to create the instance:
I had this code:
public Subscriber(OracleDataReader contractReader)
{
this.contract = Convert.ToString(contractReader["contract"]);
this.customerGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerGroup"]);
this.subGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerSubGroup"]);
this.pricingPlan= Convert.ToString(contractReader["pricingPlan"]);
this.items = new Dictionary<string, Member>();
this.status = 0;
}
So I created the following constructor:
public Subscriber(string contract, string customerGroup) : this(getSubReader(contract, customerGroup))
{ }
and this method:
private static OracleDataReader getSubReader(string contract, string customerGroup)
{
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":contract"].Value = contract + "%";
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":customerGroup"].Value = customerGroup+ "%";
return cmdSubscriber.ExecuteReader();
}
notes: a statically defined cmdSubscriber is defined elsewhere in the code; My main constructor has been simplified for this illustration.

In case you need to run something before calling another constructor not after.
public class Sample
{
static int preprocess(string theIntAsString)
{
return preprocess(int.Parse(theIntAsString));
}
static int preprocess(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
return theIntNeedRounding/100;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntAsString)
}
public Sample(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntNeedRounding)
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
And ValueTuple can be very helpful if you need to set more than one field.

NOTE: most of the solutions above does not work for structs.
Unfortunately initializing struct fields in a method called by a constructor is not recognized by the compiler and will lead to 2 errors:
in the constructor: Field xxxx must be fully assigned...
in the method, if you have readonly fields: a read-only field cannot be assigned except in a constructor.
These can be really frustrating for example when you just need to do simple check to decide on which constructor to orient your call to.