Develop Reference

Auto-property initialization [duplicate]

How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?

In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...

Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}

When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";

Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.

In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}

Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet

In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}

In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer

In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN

In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx

My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue

little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}

You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}

In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.

private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}

Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.

Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.

To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.

public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}

This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later

class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}

I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}

I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}

Read-Only Property in C# 6.0

Microsoft introduce a new syntax in C#6 that let you set your property to read-only as below:
public class Animal
{
public string MostDangerous { get; } = "Mosquito";
}
I am wondering what is the added value of such approach.
What is the difference by just writing:
public class Animal
{
public const string MostDangerous = "Mosquito";
}
or even:
public class Animal
{
public string MostDangerous
{
get
{
return "Mosquito";
}
}
}

Your example is using string constants which can't show all the possibilities. Look at this snippet:
class Foo
{
public DateTime Created { get; } = DateTime.Now; // construction timestamp
public int X { get; }
public Foo(int n)
{
X = n; // writeable in constructor only
}
}
Read only properties are per-instance and can be set from the constructor. Very different from a const field whose value must be determined at compile time. The property initializer is a separate feature and follows the rules and limitations of field initializers.

The newer syntax is an effort in reducing the verbosity of C#. It's just syntactic sugar. The IL generated is similar to an auto property with a getter and a backing store.

This improvement to C# was taken directly from VB, and removes the need to implement the backing field and constructor initializer:
Public ReadOnly dateStamp As DateTime = Datetime.Now

Property never null c#

When refactoring code, I come up with instances like the following
private string _property = string.Empty;
public string Property
{
set { _property = value ?? string.Empty); }
}
Later on in a method I see the following:
if (_property != null)
{
//...
}
Assuming that _property is only set by the setter of Property, is this code redundant?
I.e is there any way, through reflection wizardry or other methods that _property can ever be null?

Assuming that _property is only set by the setter of Property, is this
code redundant?
Exactly, it is redundant. This is the actual purpose of Properties. We shouldn't access the fields of a class directly. We should access them using a Property. So in the corresponding setter, we can embed any logic and we can rest assure that each time we try to set a value this logic would be verified once more.This argument holds even for the methods of a class. In a method we must use the properties and not the actual fields. Furthermore, when we want to read the value of a field, we should make use of the corresponding getter.
In general, properties enhances the concept of encapsulation, which is one of the pillars of object oriented programming OOP.
Many times there isn't any logic that should be applied when we want to set a value. Take for instance the following example:
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
We have declared a class for representing a Customer. A Customer object should have three properties an Id, a FirstName and a LastName.
An immediate question, when someones read this class is why should someone make use of properties here?
The answer is again the same, they provide a mechanism of encapsulation. But let's consider how can this help us in the long run. Let's say that one day someone decides that the first name of a customer should be a string of length less than 20. If the above class had been declared as below:
public class Customer
{
public int Id;
public string FirstName;
public string LastName;
}
then we should check for the length of FirstName in each instance we had created ! Otherwise, if we had picked the declaration with the properties, we could just easily make use of Data Annotations
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[StringLength(20)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
and that's it. Another approach it could be the following:
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
private string firstName;
public string FirstName
{
get { return firstName }
set
{
if(value!=null && value.length<20)
{
firstName = value;
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException("The first name must have at maxium 20 characters", "value");
}
}
}
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Consider both of the above approaches with having to revisit all your codebase and make this check. It's crystal clear that properties win.

Yes, it is possible through reflection. Nevertheless, I wouldn't worry about reflection -- people using reflection to defeat the design of your class is not something I worry about.
There is, however, something I do worry about: the phrase "Assuming that _property is only set by the setter of Property" is key. You are preventing users of your class from setting property to null.
You do not prevent, however, yourself or some other maintainer of your class from forgetting to only use the property INSIDE your class. In fact, your example has some one checking the field from inside the class rather than the property itself.... which means that, within your class, access comes from both the field and the property.
In most cases (where the problem could only come from inside the class) I would use an assertion and assert the field is not null.
If I really, really, really wanted to make sure that it wasn't null (barring reflection or people hell-bent on breaking things), you could try something like this:
internal class Program
{
static void Main()
{
string example = "Spencer the Cat";
UsesNeverNull neverNullUser = new UsesNeverNull(example);
Console.WriteLine(neverNullUser.TheString);
neverNullUser.TheString = null;
Debug.Assert(neverNullUser.TheString != null);
Console.WriteLine(neverNullUser.TheString);
neverNullUser.TheString = "Maximus the Bird";
Console.WriteLine(neverNullUser.TheString);
}
}
public class UsesNeverNull
{
public string TheString
{
get { return _stringValue.Value; }
set { _stringValue.Value = value; }
}
public UsesNeverNull(string s)
{
TheString = s;
}
private readonly NeverNull<string> _stringValue = new NeverNull<string>(string.Empty, str => str ?? string.Empty);
}
public class NeverNull<T> where T : class
{
public NeverNull(T initialValue, Func<T, T> nullProtector)
{
if (nullProtector == null)
{
var ex = new ArgumentNullException(nameof(nullProtector));
throw ex;
}
_value = nullProtector(initialValue);
_nullProtector = nullProtector;
}
public T Value
{
get { return _nullProtector(_value); }
set { _value = _nullProtector(value); }
}
private T _value;
private readonly Func<T, T> _nullProtector;
}

It is basically redundant. However, if it were mission critical or if for some reason it caused terrible side effects, it could remain. It is hard to tell, but part of your question was "can reflection change this value to null" to which the answer is yes and can be seen here in this linqpad demo
void Main()
{
var test = new Test();
test.Property = "5";
Console.WriteLine(test.Property);//5
FieldInfo fieldInfo = test.GetType().GetField("_property",BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
fieldInfo.SetValue(test, null);
Console.WriteLine(test.Property);//null
}
public class Test
{
private string _property = string.Empty;
public string Property
{
get { return _property; }
set { _property = value ?? string.Empty; }
}
}

I know this question is old, but look, I needed that one of my string properties never came up in null.
So I did this, and It worked for me
public string Operation { get; set; } = string.Empty;
In this way the default value is a string empty, but never null.

What's the difference between a property with a private setter and a property with no setter?

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);
}

How do I get the value of the used parameters in a constructor (C#)

I've got a question about getting the values from a constructor in a generic way.
namespace myTestNamespace
{
Public Class myTestClass()
{
Public myTestClass(int myInt,bool myBool, double myDouble)
{
//do / set something
}
Public myTestClass(int myInt,bool myBool)
{
//do / set something
}
}
}
Using (what you need);
Using myTestNamespace;
namespace MyIWannaLookForTheParametersName
{
Public Class MyLookUpClass()
{
Public void DoSomething()
{
List<object> myList = new List<object>();
myTestClass _ myTestClass = new myTestClass(1,true,2.5);
object mySaveObject = myTestClass;
mylist.Add(mySaveObject);
//how do I get the info from the right constructor
//(I used the one with 3 parameters_
//what was the value of myInt, myBool and myDouble
//how can I make it generic enough, so it will work with other classes with
// different constructors ass well?
}
}
}

Questions about intent aside, there's no generic way for you to do this. Information about what methods have been called and what values were supplied is not saved automatically. You are, of course, perfectly able to keep track of these things yourself, but you would have to write each class to do this explicitly.
Doing this in a generic way is asking for trouble. What if I did this?
public class Foo
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Bar
{
public Bar(Foo foo)
{
// ...
}
}
Then suppose I called it in this way:
Foo f = new Foo();
f.Name = "Jim";
Bar b = new Bar(f);
f.Name = "Bob";
Now, if such a generic system existed, what would be the value of foo for the Bar constructor? Either it reports "Bob" (which is what the value for Name is on the instance of Foo that was supplied), or it reports "Jim", meaning that the runtime or library would essentially have to be smart enough to make a deep copy of the object so that the state is not changed.
The bottom line is this: if you need access to the parameters passed to the constructor (or any other function), you'll have to store them somewhere explicitly.

You can't get thevalues from the constructor. You need to first place them in a property or a field within your class. The example you provided is a poor use of generics. You wouldbe better off placing the constructor values into properties and creating an interface with those properties.

I got what I needed with this method:
private static ParameterSettings[] GetListOfParametersFromIndicator(object indicatorClass, int loopId, myEnums.ParaOrResult paraOrResult)
{
return (from prop in indicatorClass.GetType().GetProperties()
let loopID = loopId
let Indicator = indicatorClass.GetType().Name
let value = (object)prop.GetValue(indicatorClass, null)
where prop.Name.Contains("_Constr_")
select new ParameterSettings { ParaOrResult=paraOrResult, LoopID= loopId, Indicator= Indicator, ParaName= prop.Name, Value= value }).ToArray();
}
where ParameterSettings is:
public struct ParameterSettings
{
public myEnums.ParaOrResult ParaOrResult { get; set; }
public int LoopID { get; set; }
public string Indicator { get; set; }
public string ParaName { get; set; }
public object Value { get; set; }
}
This info is ok for me. Thanks for the replies.
Regards,
Matthijs