I'm trying to make a chemistry equation balancer thingy. For that I made a class Element:
class Element
{
public elemEnum ElemType {get; set;}
public double Amount {get; set;} // How many atoms of this type in the formula
}
*elemEnum is an Enum of all the chemical elements.
I wanted to make the set for ElemType parse a string to the enumeration, but since set can only take in values of the same type as value I decided to add a method:
public void SetElemType(string type)
{
this.ElemType = (elemEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(elemEnum), type);
}
Is there an option to have the ElemType property be only set-able by the SetElemType method without having to make it private and adding a GetElemType method?
Since the most obvious solution from the comments has not been written as an answer:
Use a private setter.
class Element
{
public ElemEnum ElemType {get; private set;}
public double Amount {get; set;}
public void SetElemType(string type)
{
this.ElemType = (ElemEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(ElemEnum), type);
}
}
This way, ElemType can only be set from within your own class.
without having to make it private
Well, you could create a workaround solution by adding a bool field to your class and modifying the property a little bit.
class Element
{
private bool _elemCanBeSet = false;
private elemNum _elemType;
public elemEnum ElemType
{
get { return _elemType; }
set { if (_elemCanBeSet) _elemType = value; }
}
public double Amount {get; set;} // How many atoms of this type in the formula
public void SetElemType(string type)
{
_elemCanBeSet = true;
this.ElemType = (elemEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(elemEnum), type);
_elemCanBeSet = false;
}
}
This solution may confuse the developer using your class, because setting the property will have no effect. It is much better to use a private setter for your task, as stated by others. I just wanted to show an alternative approach.
As already was pointed, you can use private setter, alternatively you can use readonly property with public getter that works with field and method to modify this field :
class Element
{
private elemEnum _elemType;
public elemEnum ElemType { get { return _elemType; } }
public void SetElemType(string type)
{
this._elemType = (elemEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(elemEnum), type);
}
public double Amount {get; } // How many atoms of this type in the formula
}
While it is practically the same as property with private setter it uses a slightly different approach...
Well if you really want to allow only one(!) method to change value you can use reflection and add class that envelopes your enum :
class MyElemSetter
{
private readonly elemEnum elem;
public MyElemSetter(elemEnum e, Action helperAction)
{
MethodInfo callingMethodInfo = helperAction.Method;
if (helperAction.Method.Name.Contains("<SetElemType>")) elem = e;
}
public static implicit operator elemEnum(MyElemSetter e)
{
return e.elem;
}
}
class Element
{
private MyElemSetter _elemType;
public elemEnum ElemType { get { return _elemType; } }
public void SetElemType(string type)
{
this._elemType = new MyElemSetter((elemEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(elemEnum), type), () => { });
}
public double Amount { get; set; } // How many atoms of this type in the formula
}
Related
Relatively minor question about something I am missing here,
I am attempting to do a simple GetSet in C# to get the hang of the syntax but appear to have missed something as all that is printed is GetSet.Role and not the actual attributes being assigned.
Have I just worded something wrong? Apologies for the minor question but any help is appreciated.
namespace GetSet
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Role Mage = new Role("Staff", "Robes", "Magic affinity");
Role Warrior = new Role("Sword", "Platebody", "Strength");
Role Rogue = new Role("Needle", "Leather", "Cunning");
Console.WriteLine(Mage);
Console.WriteLine(Warrior);
Console.WriteLine(Rogue);
//stop the program from closing
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
and the following is my class:
namespace GetSet
{
class Role
{
//private variables
private string weapon;
private string armour;
private string passive;
//public structs
public Role(string aWeapon, string aArmour, string aPassive)
{
weapon = aWeapon;
armour = aArmour;
passive = aPassive;
}
//Getters and Setters for above private variables
public string Weapon
{
get { return weapon; }
set { weapon = value;}
}
public string Armour
{
get { return armour; }
set { armour = value;}
}
public string Passive
{
get { return passive; }
set { passive = value;}
}
}
}
Add a ToString() to your Role class and set it return whatever you want:
public override string ToString()
{
return $"Weapon: {weapon}, Armor: {armor}, Passive: {passive}";
}
You need to override the ToString method on the GetSet class.
Something like:
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{weapon}/{armour}/{passive}";
}
Update
You can simplyfy your Role class.
internal class Role
{
public Role(string weapon, string armour, string passive)
{
Weapon = weapon;
Armour = armour;
Passive = passive;
}
public string Weapon { get; }
public string Armour { get; }
public string Passive { get; }
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{Weapon}/{Armour}/{Passive}";
}
}
Re: vasily.sib's comment.
If you need to change the properties after object creation then simply change
public string Passive { get; }
to
public string Passive { get; set; }
As other answers lacks of getters/setters syntax examples, I will post my.
namespace GetSet
{
public class Role
{
// private backing field
private string _weapon;
// properties can have getters and setters, that contains some logic
public string Weapon
{
get { return _weapon; }
set { if (_weapon != vale) _weapon = value; }
}
// there is an auto-getters/setters
// in this case, backing field is handled by .Net CLR
public string Armour { get; set; }
// getters and setters may have different access level
// also, note property initializer '= "John";' - this will set property value
// to "John" right before constructor invocation
public string Name { get; private set; } = "John";
// properties also can be readonly, so they can be setted only in constructors
public string Passive { get; }
// public constructor
public Role(string passive)
{
Passive = passive;
}
public void ChangeName(string newName)
{
Name = newName; // setting property through private setter
}
// I believe, that this method shouldn't be used to represent object as string
// At least, I think, you should never relay on it's return value, BUT it ups to you
public overide string ToString() => Name;
}
}
Also, as you can see, I'm not setting publicly available properties (properties with public setters, Weapon and Armour) in consturctors, because I can initialize them along with constructing Role object, like this:
var mage = new Role("Magic affinity") { Weapon = "Staff", Armor = "Robes" };
mage.ChangeName("John, Doe");
As said before, I beleive that it is not relay on object itself, how it will look in string. I thinking so, because if you for some reasons need to represent same object as different strings in different places of your code - this will cause troubles. So instead of this:
// this will call .ToString() method
Console.WriteLine(mage);
// output: John, Doe
I suggest this:
// represent object as you need
Console.WriteLine($"{mage.Name} - walks in {mage.Armour}, beats with {mage.Weapon}");
// output: John, Doe - walks in Robes, beats with Staff
I have interface that defines value and few operations:
public interface IValue<T>
{
T Value { get; }
void InteractionA(IValue<T> target);
void InteractionB(IValue<T> target);
bool Check(IValue<T> target);
}
Then i implement class based on that interface
public class DoubleValue : IValue<double>
{
public double Value { get; private set; }
public bool Check(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
return false;
}
public void InteractionA(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
public void InteractionB(IValue<double> target)
{
// ...
}
}
Now i want to make universal manipulator that operates on pool of values and uses generics (so i only write it once). Because of the way i want to use this class in the future it cannot be declared static. Moving generic type into methods also doesn't do any good.
The closest i could get is:
public class ValueManipulator<T>
{
public IEnumerable<IValue<T>> Pool { get; private set; }
public ValueManipulator(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
Pool = pool;
}
public void ManipulateA()
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, Pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = Pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in Pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
public void ManipulateB()
{
// ...
}
}
Main problem with this ValueManipulator class is that i need to know T of IValue used in DoubleValue (in this case double). So it looks like this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ValueManipulator<double> doubleManipulator = new ValueManipulator<double>();
doubleManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
}
private static IEnumerable<DoubleValue> ProvideDoubles()
{
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
yield return new DoubleValue();
}
How do i make ValueManipulator so user does not need to know what type was used in value implementation?
Well, if your ValueManipulator<T> has no state, as appears to be your case according to your code snippets, then simply make the methods generic instead of the class, that way you can leverage type inference.
public class ValueManipulator
{
public void Manipulate<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
{
foreach (int i in Enumerable.Range(0, pool.Count()))
{
IValue<T> firstValue = pool.ElementAt(i);
foreach (IValue<T> secondValue in pool.Skip(i))
{
if (firstValue.Check(secondValue))
firstValue.InteractionA(secondValue);
else
firstValue.InteractionB(secondValue);
}
}
}
}
Now you can simply do:
ValueManipulator myManipulator = new ValueManipulator();
myManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles()); //type inference will figure out T is double
If this is a valid solution then consider making ValueManipulator a static class:
ValueManipulator.Manipulate(ProvideDoubles());
P.D. Please follow advice in commentaries and change ValueType to some other name thats less confusing.
UPDATE After your latest edit to your question, where you clearly state that ValueManipulator<T> does have state, the solution seems to be implementing a static factory class:
public static class ValueManipulator
{
public static ValueManipulator<T> Create<T>(IEnumerable<IValue<T>> pool)
=> new ValueManipulator<T>(pool);
}
public class ValueManipulator<T> { ... }
And again you let type inference do its job:
var doubleManipulator = ValueManipulator.Create(ProvideDoubles());
There is tons of info about skipping Properties based on conditionals, but I would like to skip the entire object based on conditions within the object's class. I would like a solution that is contained within the object's class if at all possible. Keep in mind this is a collection of myObj that I am serializing.
public class myObj
{
bool conditional;
ShouldSerialize()
{
return conditional;
}
}
Or
public class myObj
{
[JsonCondition]
public bool conditional{get;}
}
Or even
[JsonCondition(typeof(MyConditionChecker))]
public class myObj
{
public bool conditional{get;}
}
class MyConditionChecker: JsonCondition
{
public override bool CanConvert(object sourceObj)
{
return (sourceObj as myObj).conditional;
}
}
What I got from your comments you would be best served creating your own wrapper around Json that applies the filtering.
public interface IConditionalSerializer
{
bool ShouldBeSerialized();
}
public static class FilteredSerializer
{
public static string SerializeConditional<T>(IEnumerable<T> input)
where T : IConiditionalSerializer
{
return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(input.Where(e => e.ShouldBeSerialized()));
}
}
public class Demo : IConditionalSerializer
{
public bool ShouldBeSerialized() => false;
}
You might also replace the interface with a reflection approach, but keep in mind the performance loss.
public interface IConiditionChecker
{
bool ShouldBeSerialized(object instance);
}
public class ConditionAttribute : Attribute
{
public Type ConditionChecker { get; set; }
}
public static class FilteredSerializer
{
public static string SerializeConditional(IEnumerable<object> input)
{
var matches = (from entry in input
let att = entry.GetType().GetCustomAttribute<ConditionAttribute>()
let hasChecker = att != null && att.ConditionChecker != null
let checker = hasChecker ? (IConiditionChecker)Activator.CreateInstance(att.ConditionChecker) : null
where checker.ShouldBeSerialized(entry)
select entry);
return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(matches);
}
}
[Condition(ConditionChecker = typeof(SomeChecker))]
public class Demo
{
}
Edit: Based on your comment you could do this. Only must decide wether to use opt-in or opt-out in the where-statement. It must ether be casted != null && casted.ShouldBeSerialized or what it currently says.
public interface IShouldBeSerialized
{
bool ShouldBeSerialized();
}
public static class FilteredSerializer
{
public static string SerializeConditional(IEnumerable<object> input)
{
var matches = (from entry in input
let casted = entry as IShouldBeSerialized
where casted == null || casted.ShouldBeSerialized()
select entry);
return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(matches);
}
}
public class Demo : IShouldBeSerialized
{
public bool ShouldBeSerialized()
{
return false;
}
}
If you're able to use the JSON.NET serializer, in terms of not serializing specific items within a collection, you could make the main collection non serializable, then add another filtered collection that does serialize.
public class Manager
{
[JsonIgnore]
public Employee[] Employees { get; set; }
[JsonProperty("Employees")]
public Employee[] SerializableEmployees
{
get { return Employees.Where(e => e.Name != "Bob").ToArray(); }
set { Employees = value; }
}
}
Alternatively, you could mark your class with the [JsonConverter] attribute and use a custom converter to check your condition. A similar approach that ignores a class entirely is detailed here.
Does C# have such a feature (like Python's getter-only pattern)?
class A
{
public [read-only] Int32 A_;
public A()
{
this.A_ = new Int32();
}
public A method1(Int32 param1)
{
this.A_ = param1;
return this;
}
}
class B
{
public B()
{
A inst = new A().method1(123);
Int32 number = A.A_; // okay
A.A_ = 456; // should throw a compiler exception
}
}
To obtain this I could use the private modifier on the A_ property, and only implement a getter method. Doing so, in order to access that property I should always make a call to the getter method... is it avoidable?
Yes that is possible, syntax is like this:
public int AProperty { get; private set; }
yes. you can use read only property with private setter.
Using Properties - msdn
public string Name
{
get;
private set;
}
I need a little help i am using a class and want to set the properties based on choice on type int,string and datetime here is my code that i wrote but as my constructor will be confused between public string paramValue and public int? paramValue what is the best way to set properties based on choice so only one property can be set a time.Thanks for any suggestion
public class PassData
{
private string _ParamName { get; set; }
private int? _ParamValueInt { get; set; }
private string _ParamValueString { get; set; }
private DateTime? _ParamValueDateTime { get; set; }
public string paramName
{
get { return _ParamName; }
set { _ParamName = value;}
}
public string paramValue
{
get { return _ParamValueString; }
set {_ParamValueString = value; }
}
public int? paramValue
{
get { return _ParamValueInt; }
set { _ParamValueInt = value; }
}
public PassData(string ParamName, int ParamValue)
{
paramName = ParamName;
paramValue = ParamValue;
}
public PassData(string ParamName, string ParamValue)
{
ParamName = ParamName;
ParamValueString = ParamValue;
}
public PassData(string ParamName, DateTime ParamValue)
{
ParamName = ParamName;
ParamValueDateTime = ParamValue;
}
}
Basically, you can't have multiple properties on an object that only differ by type. You have a few options.
1) Create a single property that can hold various types:
private Object _paramValue;
public Object ParamValue
{
get { return _paramValue; }
set {_paramValue= value; }
}
In your setter, you can throw an exception if the value is a type you don't like. You'd also have to upcast the result every time you called the getter, making this solution not ideal. If you want to go this route, I'd suggest making the property an interface, and defining various implementations for the types of data you need.
2) Create a generic class:
public class PassData<T>
{
private T _paramValue;
public T paramValue
{
get { return _paramValue; }
set {_paramValue= value; }
}
}
This has the disadvantage of not being able to change the type after the instance is created. It was unclear if this was a requirement for you.
I like this design as it provides for the possibility of making the constructor for this class private:
public class PassData<T>
{
private PassData(T value)
{
this._paramValue = value;
}
}
If you did this, you can create overloaded static methods to allow the creation of instances:
public static PassData<String> CreateValue(string value)
{
return new PassData<String>(value);
}
public static PassData<Int32> CreateValue(Int32 value)
{
return new PassData<Int32>(value);
}
That way, you can control what types can be created.
Not an answer (in the sense that it does not offer you a way to do what you're trying to do, as Mike Christensen's answer covers it). I just wanted to get more into why what you are trying to do is not working.
Your expectation for it to work is not unreasonable per se, the issue is that c# is not polymorphic on return values. I think some other languages are, C# is not.
i.e. while in c#, you can do:
public void test(int val) {}
public void test(string val) {}
// When you call `test` with either an int or a string,
// the compiler will know which one to call
you CAN'T do:
public int test() {return 1;}
public string test() {return "1";}
// does not compile. The compiler should look at the call
// site and see what you assign the result of "test()" to
// to decide. But there are various edge cases and it was decided
// to leave this out of the language
Now, the get on string paramValue is functionally equivalent to this scenario. You're trying to get the compiler to decide which paramValue to call based on the return value.