I've playing around with a class that acts as a public interface for a private List<T> attribute. I noticed that the List<> class has an attribute Length that tells you how many elements it contains.
This is an attribute you cannot alter, and on the intellisense appears with an image of a spanner next to it. It is not a method as it does not require () after coding the name.
I've seen attributes of this type before, but never used them in my own classes. Does anybody have any idea how I can replicate Length in my custom class?
Thanks,
Mark
It's a property with no setter. If you're wrapping a List<T> you can just use it's Count as your own:
public int Count {get {return _myPrivateList.Count; } }
If you're using C# 6, you can use this:
public int Count => _myPrivateList.Count;
If you currently have a class that contains a List, then you can take advantage of the Count property already present on it by exposing a property that simply uses that :
public class YourExampleList<T>
{
// Example of your inner list
private List<T> _list { get; set; }
// Use the Count property to expose a public "Length" equivalent
public int Length { get { return _list.Count; } }
}
This is actually not a method, but a property.
So you could have define in your class
private List<string> myList = new List<string>();
public int NumberOfElements
{
get { return this.myList.Count; }
}
A normal property would be defined such as
public bool ColumnNames { get; set; }
List<T> myList = new List<T>();
Now you can create your own implementation on your custom class. Something like:
public int Length {get {return myList.Count; }}
I must admit that your question is a bit vague. It sounds like you want know how to create a read only attribute / property. This can be achieved by creating a property wrapper for a private field member of your class as follow:
class MyCustomClass
{
private int _length;
public int Length
{
get { return _length; }
}
}
Say for example you have a class like this:
public class MyClass
{
private string _str;
public MyClass()
{
_str = "Sample String";
}
public int Length
{
get
{
return _str.Length;
}
}
}
This is what's happening:
We're declaring a private field at the start of the class named _str.
In the constructor we're then assigning it a value of "Sample String".
After the constructor we're then declaring the public attribute Length of type int, and only giving it a get accessor. Like your example, this only allows the value to be read, and not set.
Within the get we then tell it to return the value of _str's length.
Using code similar to this you can implement a Length attribute for any custom class.
Related
this is a problem I'm not sure how to call it or how name the things I want to do but hopefully the code examples can speak for themselves. I come from a PHP background and am learning .NET Core 2.2/3.0. Something I'm running into right now though is how I can avoid some code duplication when creating similar classes. For example I want to create multiple value objects that basically just contain strings, but each value object has different constraints. In most cases however the only constraint differences are in the length.
So in PHP I would do something like this:
abstract class Text
{
abstract public static function maxCharacters(): int;
protected $value;
public function __construct(string $text)
{
if (mb_strlen($text) > static::maxCharacters()) {
throw new LengthException(sprintf('Too many characters, the max is %d.', static::maxCharacters()));
}
$this->value = $text;
}
public function value(): string
{
return $this->value;
}
}
class Name extends Text
{
public static function maxCharacters(): int
{
return 50;
}
}
class Description extends Text
{
public static function maxCharacters(): int
{
return 1000;
}
}
It's not the best example of inheritance, but the goal is to illustrate the point in that I would like to have 1 place where I can put my validation logic, and then in the subclass only have to define the parameters of the validation and not the actual logic to perform the validation.
Since we're dealing with value objects here I assume that in C# it would be best to use a (readonly) struct. So, without any inheritance, what I ended up with as the C# equivalent is:
public readonly struct Name
{
private const int MAX_CHARACTERS = 50;
public string Value
{
get { return this.Value; }
set
{
if (value.Length > Name.MAX_CHARACTERS)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(String.Format("Too many characters, the max is {0}.", Name.MAX_CHARACTERS));
}
this.Value = value;
}
}
public Name(string name) => this.Value = name;
}
public readonly struct Description
{
private const int MAX_CHARACTERS = 1000;
public string Value
{
get { return this.Value; }
set
{
if (value.Length > Description.MAX_CHARACTERS)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(String.Format("Too many characters, the max is {0}.", Description.MAX_CHARACTERS));
}
this.Value = value;
}
}
public Description(string description) => this.Value = description;
}
But as you can see without inheritance that's a lot of copy/paste, and copy/paste is something I prefer to avoid. The only alternative I could think of is to create a separate TextValidator class or something that I can call from the set to which I would only have to pass the max number of characters, but that would still leave me with more copy/paste than I'd prefer.
How would you write something like this in C# with as little copy/paste as possible?
It seems like you've got the basics of inheritance understood in your PHP example; I'd just suggest doing a bit of reading on the syntax in C#.
For what it's worth, the following would do the trick:
public abstract class Text{
public string Value { get; }
public Text(string val) {
if (val.Length > MAX) throw new Exception();
Value = val;
}
protected abstract int MAX{get;}
}
public class Name : Text{
public Name(string val): base(val) { }
protected override int MAX => 50;
}
public class Description : Text
{
public Description(string val) : base(val) { }
protected override int MAX => 1000;
}
I'll also add a footnote to say be careful calling abstract methods/properties from a class constructor (which is what I'm doing here). If, for example, the value of MAX is a computed value which depends on the object already having been initialized, you could run into some issues. In this case though, it won't be a problem.
I am a bit confused with the get set property in C#.
I have the simple code below:
using System;
class Example
{
int _number;
public int Number
{
get
{
return this._number;
}
set
{
this._number = value;
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Example example = new Example();
example.Number = 5; // set { }
Console.WriteLine(example.Number); // get { }
}
}
The code above using get set properties. However, if I delete the get set code like below code, the results stay the same.
using System;
class Example
{
int _number;
public int Number;
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Example example = new Example();
example.Number = 5; // set { }
Console.WriteLine(example.Number); // get { }
}
}
My query is, what is the get set code used for? In the above program, the results are same. Can you give me some simple code which show the get set usage?
In your code, Number is simply a public field, as evidenced by the semicolon (;) at the end.
public int Number;
It is not a property, you just have an empty set of brackets right underneath which led to your confusion. If you were to remove the ; then you would actually have a property that is missing it's get, and would not compile at all.
All properties need to have a getter (setters are optional). If you want to avoid writing them, you can use auto properties, which take care of the backing field without you having to get involved:
public int Number { get; set; } // No field required
Note: A common usage pattern you'll see involving auto properties is the following:
public int Number { get; private set; }
This allows for properties that can be read from anywhere, but can only be modified from within the class they belong to.
EDIT: To answer your question, the main difference between fields and properties is in encapsulation. You can read more about the general differences between fields and properties here.
However, the example you have given has one additional difference, the private set. A normal field can be written from and to throughout the program. A property with a private setter however can only be modified from inside the class it belongs to.
Example:
public class Foo
{
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name;
public Foo()
{
this.Id = 1; // This works!
}
}
Here, Name is a field and Id is a property with a private setter. Notice that we modify Id in the constructor and that works, because it is within the class Id belongs to. Moving outside the class however:
var foo = new Foo();
// Field (no get and set):
foo.Name = "test" // Works
string bar = foo.Name; // Works
// Property (get and *private* set)
int i = foo.Id; // Works, because get is public
foo.Id = 2; // Doesn't work, because set is private
If I want a read-only property, I write it like:
public int MyProperty { get { //Code goes here } }
However, the Microsoft example (and a few other examples I've seen) are written like:
public int MyProperty { get; private set; }
Is there any difference between these two, and should I start writing properties like this?
As you can see in your second sample, you can leave out the implementation for a property. .NET will then automatically create a local variable for the property and implement simple getting and setting.
public int MyProperty { get; private set; }
is actually equivalent to
private int _myProperty;
public int MyProperty {
get { return _myProperty; }
private set { _myProperty = value; }
}
Writing
public int MyProperty { get; }
does not work at all, as automatic properties need to implement a getter and a setter, while
public int MyProperty { get; private set; }
leaves you with a property that may return any int, but can only be changed within the current class.
public int MyProperty { get { ... } }
creates a read-only property.
Question is: what do you need? If you already have a member variable that's used within your class and you only want to return the current value using a property, you're perfectly fine with
public int MyProperty { get { return ...; }}
However, if you want a read-only property, which you need to set within your code (but not from other classes) without explicitly declaring a member variable, you have to go with the private set approach.
With private setter you can only assign property value inside of instance when property is without setter you can't set its value anywhere.
If you don't use an explicit member assignment in the property, you'll have to declare a private set at least in order to be able to set a value to this property. Otherwise, you'll get a warning at compile-time saying that your property cannot be assigned.
If you use an explicit member, you'll be able to assign a value to this member directly, without needing to add a private set:
private int member ;
public int MyProperty {
get { return member; }
}
// ...
member = 2;
int anotherVariable = MyProperty; // anotherVariable == 2
public int MyProperty
{
get
{
// Your own logic, like lazy loading
return _myProperty ?? (_myProperty = GetMyProperty());
}
}
A property with only a getter is very useful if you need your own logic behind the access of that property, in particular when you need the property to be lazy loaded.
public int MyProperty { get; private set; }
A property with a private setter is useful if you need the property not te be changed from the outside, but still maintained from within the class.
In both cases, you can have a backing data field for the actual value, but in the former, you'll have to maintain that yourself, and in the latter, it is maintained for you by the generated code.
There is a difference when you access the object with reflection.
public class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; private set; }
}
// .....
internal static void Main()
{
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.GetType().GetProperty("Bar").SetValue(foo, "private?", null);
Console.WriteLine(foo.Bar);
}
Can somebody help me understand the get & set?
Why are they needed? I can just make a public variable.
Warning: I am assuming you already know about object-oriented programming.
What are properties?
Properties are language elements that allow you to avoid the repetitive getXYZ() accessors and setXYZ() mutators techniques found in other languages, like Java.
Why do they exist?
They aim to solve the following problems:
Saying get and set in the beginning of every access or mutation of a value is annoying and distracting.
In Java, you often say:
class person
{
private int _age;
public void setAge(int value) { /*check value first, then set _age*/ }
public int getAge() { return this._age; }
}
and then consistently say:
if (person.getAge() > blah || person.getAge() < 10)
{
person.setAge(5);
}
After a while, the get and set become rather annoying.
Providing direct access to the actual variable breaks encapsulation, so that's not an option.
How are they used?
They are used just like variables. You read/write to them just like variables.
How are they created?
They are created as methods. You define a pair of methods that:
Return the current value of the property. Oftentimes, this is nothing more than something like the following:
class Person
{
private int _age; //Declare the backing field
public int Age
{
get { return this._age; }
set { ... }
}
}
Set the value of the property:
class Person
{
public int Age
{
get { ... }
set
{
if (value < 0) //'value' is what the user provided
{ throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); } //Check validity
this._age = value;
}
}
}
Other notes:
Auto-implemented Properties
C# 3.0 introduced auto-implemented properties:
public int Age { get; set; }
This is equivalent to:
private int _age; //The name is auto-generated
public int Age { get { return this._age; } set { this._age = value; } }
Why does it exist?
It helps you avoiding breaking changes in client executables.
Let's say you're lazy and don't want to type the whole thing, and decide to expose a variable publicly. You then create an executable that reads from or writes to that field. Then you change your mind and decide that you in fact needed a property, so you change it to one.
What happens?
The depending executable breaks, because the code is no longer valid.
Auto-implemented properties help you avoid that, without extra redundancy in your initial code.
Indexers
Indexers extend the property syntax to let you index objects (surprise!), just like arrays.
For C++ users: This is similar to overloading operator [].
Example:
private int[] _elements;
public int this[int index] //Indexed property
{
get { return this._elements[index]; }
set
{
//Do any checks on the index and value
this._elements[index] = value;
}
}
You then use them like obj[5] = 10;, which is equivalent to calling the set method of obj's indexer.
In fact, System.Collections.Generic.List<T> is indexed:
var list = new List<int>();
list.Add(10);
list[0] = 5; //You're indexing list, as though it were an array!
Isn't that neat? :)
Anything else?
There are many more features to properties, not all of which are available in C#:
Parametrized properties, of which indexers are a special kind
Getter/setter access modifiers (in C#)
Multiple getters or setters (not in C#)
Et cetera
They are called Accessors
The accessor of a property contains the executable statements associated with getting (reading or computing) or setting (writing) the property. The accessor declarations can contain a get accessor, a set accessor, or both.
The body of the get accessor resembles that of a method. It must return a value of the property type.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/w86s7x04.aspx
private string m_Name; // the name field
public string Name // the Name property
{
get
{
return m_Name;
}
}
The set accessor resembles a method whose return type is void. It uses an implicit parameter called value, whose type is the type of the property.
private m_Name;
public string Name {
get {
return m_Name;
}
set {
m_Name = value;
}
}
Then in the incarnation of C# 3, you can do this much easier through auto-properties
public string Name {get; set; } // read and write
public string Name {get; } // read only
public string Name { get; private set; } //read and parent write
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384054.aspx
Properties act as accessors to the internal state of an object, hiding the implementation of that state.
So, for example, you may have a first name property in a class
public class Example
{
private string firstName;
public string FirstName
{
get {return this.firstName;}
}
}
So anyone using the class doesn't need to know how first name is stored, they just know they can get a string representation of it. By adding a set you also add a mutator, something which changes an objects internal state
public class Example
{
private string firstName;
public string FirstName
{
get {return this.firstName;}
set {set this.firstName = value;}
}
}
Again you're still isolating how the first name is stored internally (encapsulation), but users can change it by passing in a string.
Simply put, get and set accessors are the functions called on a Property; that is, when you retrieve the value or when you set it. It forces a type of behavior on the way values are retrieved or set.
For example, you may want to have a mechanism to get/set passwords. Generally speaking, you'll only want to compare the hash of a password instead of storing things plaintext, so you'd have the getter variable retrieve the stored hash, and the setter would take the provided input and hash it for storage.
Here's what I mean:
public class User {
//Usery properties here, and...
private string _password;
public string Password {
get {
return _password;
}
set {
_password = SomeHashingFunction(value);
}
}
}
value is the variable provided to the setter from what has been given in the variable assignment. e.g.: someuser.Password = "blah";
Get and set are used in properties. They can each be public, protected, or private. Similar to accessor and mutator methods, they allow some computation when code tries to access/mutate the property. Of course, as long as you define one of get/set, the other is optional.
Example without properties:
private int test;
public int getTest() {
// some computation on test here, maybe?
return test;
}
private void setTest(int test) {
// some error/range checking, maybe?
this.test = test;
}
With properties:
private int test;
public int Test {
get {
// some computation on test here, maybe?
return test;
}
private set {
// some error/range checking, maybe?
test = value; // value is a keyword here
}
}
get{} and set{} are accessors that offer up the ability to easily read and write to private fields. Working with a simple example:
public class Foo()
{
//Field
private int _bar;
//Property
public int Bar
{
get { return _bar; }
set { _bar = value; }
//value is an implicit parameter to the set acccessor.
//When you perform an assignment to the property, the value you
//assign is the value in "value"
}
}
In this case, Bar is a public property that has a getter and a setter that allows access to the private field _bar that would otherwise be inaccessible beyond class Foo.
Now in a class that has an instace of Foo, you can do this:
public class IHasAFoo()
{
private Foo _myFoo = new Foo();
public void SomeMethod()
{
_myFoo.Bar = 42;
}
}
So the public accessor allows you to set the value of the private field back in Foo.
Hope that helps!
Suppose I have:
public class Bob
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
I want to pass the Value member as an out parameter like
Int32.TryParse("123", out bob.Value);
but I get a compilation error, "'out' argument is not classified as a variable." Is there any way to achieve this, or am I going to have to extract a variable, à la:
int value;
Int32.TryParse("123", out value);
bob.Value = value;
You'd have to explicitly use a field and "normal" property instead of an auto-implemented property:
public class Bob
{
private int value;
public int Value
{
get { return value; }
set { this.value = value; }
}
}
Then you can pass the field as an out parameter:
Int32.TryParse("123", out bob.value);
But of course, that will only work within the same class, as the field is private (and should be!).
Properties just don't let you do this. Even in VB where you can pass a property by reference or use it as an out parameter, there's basically an extra temporary variable.
If you didn't care about the return value of TryParse, you could always write your own helper method:
static int ParseOrDefault(string text)
{
int tmp;
int.TryParse(text, out tmp);
return tmp;
}
Then use:
bob.Value = Int32Helper.ParseOrDefault("123");
That way you can use a single temporary variable even if you need to do this in multiple places.
You can achieve that, but not with a property.
public class Bob {
public int Value { get; set; } // This is a property
public int AnotherValue; // This is a field
}
You cannot use out on Value, but you can on AnotherValue.
This will work
Int32.TryParse("123", out bob.AnotherValue);
But, common guidelines tells you not to make a class field public. So you should use the temporary variable approach.