This question already has answers here:
Modify Struct variable in a Dictionary
(5 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have the following code that will modify a property inside a structure, and the structure is inside a hash table. Each item in hash table has key of (Int) data type and key of (struct Bag), here is the code i have:
struct Bag {
string apple_type;
string orange_type;
};
// Make a new hashtable that will have a key of (int) data type, value of (Bag)
public static Hashtable bags = new Hashtable();
Then i have a method that will read data from a data base reading rows and adding as long there is a row it will add an item (bag(object)) to the hashtable:
public void initHashtbl(){
OleDbConnection db_connector = new OleDbConnection(connection_string);
// Open connection to oracle
db_connector.Open();
OleDbCommand sql_commander = new OleDbCommand(sql_statement, db_connector);
OleDbDataReader data_Reader = sql_commander.ExecuteReader();
// Read data from sql db server and store it in memory ...
Bag tempBag = new Bag();
// row counter used for list view
int row_counter = 0;
while (data_Reader.Read()) { // Keep reading data from memory until there is no row
tempBag.apple_type = data_Reader[0].ToString();
bags.Add(row_counter, tempBag);
row_counter++;
}
for(int bag_item=0;bag_item < bags.Count;bag_item++){
// Get orange type value from another method that uses another sql statement from another table in db ..
((bag) bags[bag_item]).orange_type = getOrangeType(((bag) bags[bag_item]).apple_type);
}
}
How can i access the property of structure that is already inside hash table at later time if i wanted to access it?
Edit:
I'm getting this error:
"Cannot modify the result of an unboxing conversion."
Dictionary will not allow me to modify that directly
Neither will a Hashtable. This has nothing to do with Hashtable vs Dictionary. The problem is that your "value" in either case is a value type, so you can't modify it directly within the collection. If you really need a struct, then you'll have to create a new value and put it back into the hashtable:
bags.Add(1, new Bag() {apple_type="apple1",orange_type="orange1"});
//((Bag)bags[1]).apple_type="apple2";
var bag = (Bag)bags[1];
bag.apple_type = "appple2";
bags[1] = bag;
But mutable structs are generally bad, so I would either get the value of the struct right the first time (rather than modifying it ourside of the initial load loop) :
// row counter used for list view
int row_counter = 0;
while (data_Reader.Read()) { // Keep reading data from memory until there is no row
{
var appleType = data_Reader[0].ToString();
Bag tempBag = new Bag() {
apple_type = appleType,
orange_type = getOrangeType(appleType)
};
bags.Add(row_counter, tempBag);
row_counter++;
}
or use a class.
Note that the same code works exactly the same way whether you use a Hashtable or a Dictionary.
Also, since your "key" is just an incrementing number (and not tied to the value at all), you could just as well use a List<Bag> and access the items by index.
This code worked for me to read an item:
string orangeType = ((Bag) bags[0]).orange_type;
To modify an item, I think you must create a new Bag and replace the existing one like this:
bags[0] = newBag;
If you try to modify the properties of a bag in the HashTable, then you get the error you reported above.
Because of how value types work, the boxed Bag is a copy of the original, and "unboxing" it by casting back to Bag creates yet another copy. From the C# language spec:
When a value of a value type is converted to type object, an object
instance, also called a “box,” is allocated to hold the value, and the
value is copied into that box. Conversely, when an object reference is
cast to a value type, a check is made that the referenced object is a
box of the correct value type, and, if the check succeeds, the value
in the box is copied out.
Modifying the copy wouldn't change the original anyway, so it wouldn't make much sense to allow it.
Corrections:
To fix your error and to allow modifications to your HashTable of Bag's you should change your value type to reference type:
public class Bag
{
public string apple_type { get; set; }
public string orange_type { get; set; }
};
Related
In a class constructor I have a instantiate a list containing properties:
public MDInstrument() : base()
{
// bidss = new TickData[] {Bid0};
Bids = new List<TickData> { Bid0, Bid1, Bid2, Bid3, Bid4, Bid5, Bid6, Bid7, Bid8, Bid9, Bid10, Bid0, Bid11, Bid13, Bid14, Bid15, Bid6, Bid17, Bid18, Bid19};
Offers = new List<TickData> { Ask0, Ask1, Ask2, Ask3, Ask4, Ask5, Ask6, Ask7, Ask8, Ask9, Ask10, Ask0, Ask11, Ask13, Ask14, Ask15, Ask6, Ask17, Ask18, Ask19};
}
A method in the class updates the object in the list but why is the object always null ?
I must be missing something
Your problem is that to begin with Bid{x} and Ask{x} have not been instantiated, i.e. they're null, and then you store a reference to those values, and of course the reference is null. When you then later on update Bid0 (for example), then that reference is updated, but nothing can know that this is intended to be stored within your set.
Suggest that you change your list to be an array of a fixed known size (here, 20) which will be all nulls to begin with. Then change your getter/setter accessors for the individual Bid items to actually the array internally. Then you also don't need all of those separate Bid{x}/Ask{x} variables.
I am assigning property names of a dynamic object as ints in string form. The int value represents an int ID in a database I am using. However I am stuck on how to retrieve the value assigned to the property as shown below:
dynamic test = new ExpandoObject()
IDictionary<string, object> proxyFiler = test as IDictionary<string, object>;
proxyFiler["four"] = 4;
proxyFiler["5"] = 5;
int r = test.four; // Works
int s = test.5; // Doesn't work
A method which reads the database will return an "int" and I would like to be able to access the property value with that property name.
To expand on this: what if I wanted to do a linq query to sort out a list of dynamic objects according to a property name? In this case I need to get the propertyName which I have retrieved as a string e.g. "15":
return disorderedList.OrderBy(o => o.propertyName).ToList();
Does anyone know a simple solution to this problem or do you recommend a different approach? Thanks.
In order for dynamic to work in this way, the key has to follow the rules for valid identifier names in C# (the rules are specified in this outdated MSDN page, but also in the C# language specification). A single number (5) is not an allowed identifier name, which is why that doesn't work.
Note that you can still retrieve the value by using the type as a dictionary, in a similar manner to how you populated it.
As for your second example - you are never using value, so it has no effect. It's the same as just writing int r = test.four;
Edit:
I believe, given your approach, you'd need to cast to a dictionary:
return disorderedList
.OrderBy(o => ((IDictionary<string, object>)o)[propertyName]).ToList();
when I try to cast a list item as an object, I get the following. "Cannot convert type 'System.Web.UI.WebControls.ListItem' to 'ASPGigManager2.GigOpportunity'"
Is there anyway you can do this? Here is my code:
GigOpportunity gigOpportunity;
gigList.removeGig((GigOpportunity)lstGigs.SelectedItem);
I have tried to go the long way round and convert it to string but I still get a conversion error, string to GigOpportunity.
GigOpportunity gigOpportunity;
string test;
test = Convert.ToString(lstGigs.SelectedItem);
gigOpportunity = test;
Its as it says, you cannot convert a ListItem to GigOpportunity. And since this is ASP.NET, your original object no longer exists inside the list control. So, during your initial binding, set the DataValueField property to a unique value that identifies each gig (such as a primary key).
Then, on a callback, you have to find your original gig again. For example:
var selectedValue = lstGigs.SelectedValue;
var gig = gigList.Where(x => x.SomeKeyValue == selectedValue).Single();
gigList.Remove(gig);
Better yet, turn you gigList into a dictionary who's key is the same key you used as the value. Then, all you have to do is
gigDict.Remove(lstGigs.SelectedValue);
I'm looking for a type/method of collection where I can add an object to a group of objects, then separately change the attributes of that object, and have those changes reflected in the object within the collection.
I've heard that List<T> adds values by reference, so I figured that the reference would be to the same object. In other words, I assumed:
List<string> valuesList = new List<string>();
string initialValue = "Alpha";
valuesList.Add(initialValue);
initialValue = "Bravo";
bool incorrectAssumption = (valuesList[0] == "Bravo");
I had hoped that 'valuesList' would then contain the new value, "Bravo." Tried it out and I realized that the List copies the reference, it doesn't absorb it, so valueList still only has the "Alpha" value. Are there any ways to use a collection as a legitimate handful of the objects they contain?
And in case it helps to see the actual business need....
List<BaseWidget> widgets = new List<BaseWidget>();
DerivedWidget specialWidget = new DerivedWidget();
DerivedWidget extraSpecialWidget = new DerivedWidget();
widgets.Add(specialWidget);
widgets.Add(extraSpecialWidget);
specialWidget.Run();
extraSpecialWidget.Run();
if (!widgets.Any(x => x.RunSuccessfully)) return false;
(Where the Run() method sets the RunSuccessfully property, which I'd like to have reflected in the 'widgets' list.)
============================================================================
UPDATE
As it's been pointed out in the answers and comments, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the business need mock-up and the dry-run example. I'll condense the life-lesson into this: it seems List<objects> have their changes tracked, whereas List<values> don't.
Well. It seems that you don't understand what happens really. Here is great article about .net type internals.
Shortly, what happens in your example with strings:
You create list
You create variable initialValue of string type. Value of this variable stores in special local variables container. Because string is reference type, in container of local variables it contained as a pointer to object.
You create new string "Alpha", storing it in heap, and assign pointer (to this string) to your local variable.
Then you are adding object to list. In your List this object stored as pointer to somewhere.
Then you are changing content of local variable 'initialValue' by assign it to pointer to another string. So, now in local variable 'initialValue' is one pointer, in list is another pointer.
Well, what about solutions?
Wrap your string to some another class. Like this:
class Wrapper<T> {
public T Content {get;set;}
public Wrapper(T content) {
Content = content;
}
}
Usage:
void Main()
{
var valuesList = new List<Wrapper<string>>();
var initialValue = new Wrapper<string>("Alpha");
valuesList.Add(initialValue);
initialValue.Content = "Bravo";
Console.WriteLine(valuesList[0].Content);
}
A bit ugly syntax.
Use clojures:
void Main()
{
List<Func<string>> valuesList = new List<Func<string>>();
string initialValue = "Alpha";
valuesList.Add(() => initialValue);
initialValue = "Bravo";
Console.WriteLine(valuesList[0]() == "Bravo");
}
All references to non-value types will be passed by reference, List<T> or not. String is a value type, however, and will always be passed by value. They are also immutable, so any time you change one you're actually creating a new String.
For your example, you could create a wrapper type to contain your string, and store this in your List<T>.
It seems that your actual business case should work properly, unless they are declared as structs.
This is an example I have seen in the Effective C# book:
private BindingList<PayrollData> data;
public IBindingList MyCollection
{
get { return data; }
}
public void UpdateData()
{
// Unreliable operation might fail:
var temp = UnreliableOperation();
// This operation will only happen if
// UnreliableOperation does not throw an
// exception.
data = temp;
}
The author says this will work for value type and not for reference type.
I couldn't understand what he meant.
I think I now understand: a collection is a ref type. consumers of "data field" won't remeber they a re holding a copy to the old storage on the heap.
if "data" was value type - the consumers (other code that uses data) will remeber they are holding a deep copy of data and will ask for it again when need to update.
right ?
The collection is a reference type, so other holding code onto that will see the old data.
Two possible solutions:
Instead of data = temp use data.Clear(); data.AddRange(temp) which will change the contents of the data field.
Or better delete the MyCollection property and make class implement IEnumerable. This results in much better encapsulation.