Develop Reference

C# Basic parameter passing

I am new to C# I am trying to pass a value to a method but receiving 0.Creating an instance to the main method of calc and calling the calc methods in main.
public void test()
{
var calc = new Calc();
calc.Add(1);
var actual = calc.Value;
}
public class Calc
{
public int Value{
get; set;
}
public void Add(int value)
{
int result = value + value;
}
I am trying to set the current value, how could I do that?

I'd suggest refactoring it a bit so the variable names are more clear. Your initial problem is that you weren't doing anything with the result, when really you wanted to set it to your property.
public class Calc
{
public int CurrentValue { get; set; }
public void Add(int number)
{
this.CurrentValue = this.CurrentValue + number;
}
}

The result of your Add method is not stored anywhere, i.e. the after the method is complete all the memory allocated while it was executed, is released. If you wish to save the result of your method you should either return it (which will require changing your method's prototype) or save it in a member of you class and access it with an appropriate property or getter-method.
Your class should be something like this:
public class Calc
{
private int result;
public int Value
{
get { return result; }
set { result = value; }
}
public void Add(int value)
{
result = value + value;
}
}
Please note that currently the Add methods just saves the result of two times of the value of the sent parameter value into the class member result

I think you want something more like this:
public class Calc
{
public int Value{
get; private set;
}
public void Add(int value)
{
this.Value += value;
}
}
Note I changed your Value to have a private setter, so that only the Calc class has access to change its value, whereas other objects are still able to retrieve its value.
Notice the change in the Add function, we're adding the value passed into the function onto your Value property. In your case you were just creating a new variable result in each call of the Add method, and then doing nothing with it.
You can see it in action here

Too many calculated properties in my class

I have class which have too many related calculated properties.
I have currently kept all properties are read only.
some properties need long calculation and it is called again when its related properties are needed.
How can create this complex object .Also i want these properties should not be set from external code. I need show hide as i am binding properties for UI. Also i think order is also important.
My Class is something like
public string A
{
get
{
return complexMethod();
;
}
}
public string B
{
get
{
if (A == "value")
return "A";
else return "B";
;
}
}
public bool ShowHideA
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(A);
;
}
}
public bool ShowHideB
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(B);
;
}
}
public string complexMethod()
{
string value = "";
// calculation goes here
return value;
}
}
Thanks

You need to use Lazy type provided by .net:
Lazy<YourType> lazy = new Lazy<YourType>();
Make your properties internal to not be set from external code.

Well tall order isn't it?
One of the coolest things about extension methods is you can use types. This is perfect for writing external programs to calculate property values. Start like this...
public static class XMLibrary
{
public static MC CalculateValues(this MC myclass)
{
//for each property calculate the values here
if (myclass.Name == string.Empty) myclass.Name = "You must supply a name";
if (myclass.Next == 0) myclass.Next = 1;
//when done return the type
return myclass;
}
}
public class MC
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Next { get; set; }
}
public class SomeMainClass
{
public SomeMainClass()
{
var mc = new MC { Name = "test", Next = 0 };
var results = mc.CalculateValues();
}
}
There are many other ways to do class validation on a model, for example dataannotations comes to mind, or IValidatableObject works too. Keeping the validation separate from the class is a good idea.
//Complex properites are simple
public class MyComplextClass{
public List<MyThings> MyThings {get;set;}
public List<FileInfo> MyFiles {get;set;}
public List<DateTime> MyDates {get;set;}
}

Design a mutable class that after it's consumed becomes immutable

Suppose that the scenario doesn't allow to implement an immutable type. Following that assumption, I'd like opinions / examples on how to properly design a type that after it's consumed, becomes immutable.
public class ObjectAConfig {
private int _valueB;
private string _valueA;
internal bool Consumed { get; set; }
public int ValueB {
get { return _valueB; }
set
{
if (Consumed) throw new InvalidOperationException();
_valueB = value;
}
}
public string ValueA {
get { return _valueA; }
set
{
if (Consumed) throw new InvalidOperationException();
_valueA = value;
}
}
}
When ObjectA consumes ObjectAConfig:
public ObjectA {
public ObjectA(ObjectAConfig config) {
_config = config;
_config.Consumed = true;
}
}
I'm not satisfied that this simply works, I'd like to know if there's a better pattern (excluded, as said, making ObjectAConfig immutable by design from begin).
For example:
can make sense define a monad like Once<T> that allow the wrapped value to be initialized only once?
can make sense define a type that returns the type itself changing a private field?

What you are implementing sometimes goes under the name "popsicle immutability" - i.e. you can freeze it. Your current approach will work - indeed I use that pattern myself in numerous places.
You can probably reduce some duplication via something like:
private void SetField<T>(ref T field, T value) {
if (Consumed) throw new InvalidOperationException();
field = value;
}
public int ValueB {
get { return _valueB; }
set { SetField(ref _valueB, value); }
}
public string ValueA {
get { return _valueA; }
set { SetField(ref _valueA, value); }
}
There is another related approach, though: a builder. For example, taking your existing class:
public interface IConfig
{
string ValueA { get; }
int ValueB { get; }
}
public class ObjectAConfig : IConfig
{
private class ImmutableConfig : IConfig {
private readonly string valueA;
private readonly int valueB;
public ImmutableConfig(string valueA, int valueB)
{
this.valueA = valueA;
this.valueB = valueB;
}
}
public IConfig Build()
{
return new ImmutableConfig(ValueA, ValueB);
}
... snip: implementation of ObjectAConfig
}
Here there is a truly immutable implementation of IConfig, and your original implementation. If you want the frozen version, call Build().

Overriding the Defaults in a struct (c#)

Is it possible to set or override the default state for a structure?
As an example I have an
enum something{a,b,c,d,e};
and a structure that links 2 values for that enum
struct SomethingData
{
something type;
int Value;
double Multipler;
SomethingData(something enumVal, int intVal, double DblVal) {...}
}
But can I specify that the default state is
SomethingData(something.c,0,1);

Struct constructors are similar to
class constructors, except for the
following differences:
Structs cannot contain explicit
parameterless constructors. Struct
members are automatically initialized
to their default values. A struct
cannot have an initializer in the
form: base (argument-list).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288208(v=vs.71).aspx
So, short answer, no you can't override the default constructor (every struct has a parameterless constructor and you can't hide it or override it)...

You can't. Structs always have a default constructor that sets every member to its default value (null for reference types, 0 for numeric types, false for bools, etc.) This behavior cannot be changed.

You can't override the default (parameterless) constructor for a struct. You can only add new constructors, which take parameters.
http://csharp.2000things.com/2010/10/03/108-defining-a-constructor-for-a-struct/

Creating a class object will cause all of the instance fields to come into existence before anything--even the class constructor--can access it, and allocating an array will cause all of its elements to exist before anything can access the array. Both of these actions will cause all of the memory allocated to those fields or elements to be zeroed out without regard for the data types to be stored therein.
When a class-type storage location comes into existence, it will initially hold a null reference. When a structure-type storage location comes into existence, all of its fields (and any fields of structures within it) will do so simultaneously. Unlike class object instances which can only come into existence by using a constructor, structure-type storage locations are brought into existence without using any of the structure's own code. Consequently, the structure's definition will have no say in what should happen when "instances" [i.e. struct-type storage locations] come into existence.
A struct is, fundamentally, a collection of fields bound together with duct tape. If a struct is supposed to behave like something else, it should typically make its fields private and pretend to be immutable [even though struct assignment actually mutates the destination struct by overwriting all its fields with the corresponding values from the source, and the struct definition gets no say in the matter]. If, however, a struct is supposed to encapsulate a fixed set of related but independent values (e.g. the coordinates of a point), which may independently accommodate any combination of values which are legal for their respective types, a struct should simply expose its fields publicly. Some people may whine about "mutable structs are evil", but the evils only apply when invoking self-mutating methods on a struct. Structs which expose their state as fields behave like collections of variables stuck together with duct tape. If what one needs is a collection of variables stuck together with duct tape, trying to make a struct pretend to be immutable will simply make it harder to program with.

There is a workaround to make this happen by using custom Property getters. Observe:
public struct Foostruct
{
private int? _x;
private int? _y;
public int X
{
get { return _x ?? 20; } // replace 20 with desired default value
set { _x = value; }
}
public int Y
{
get { return _y ?? 10; } // replace 10 with desired default value
set { _y = value; }
}
}
This will only work for value types (which can be wrapped with nullable) but you could potentially do something similar for reference types by wrapping them in a generic class like below:
public class Wrapper<TValue>
{
public TValue Value { get; set; }
}
public struct Foostruct
{
private Wrapper<Tick> _tick;
public Tick Tick
{
get { return _tick == null ? new Tick(20) : _tick.Value; }
set { _tick = new Wrapper<Tick> { Value = value }; }
}
}

Somewhat related: I've often wanted to use the new object initializer syntax with an immutable value type. However, given the nature of a typical immutable value type implementation, there is no way to utilize that syntax, since the properties are read-only.
I've come up with this approach; In my opinion this still satisfies the immutability of the value type, but allows the code that is responsible for instantiating the value type greater control over the initialization of the internal data.
struct ImmutableValueType
{
private int _ID;
private string _Name;
public int ID
{
get { return _ID; }
}
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
}
// Infuser struct defined within the ImmutableValueType struct so that it has access to private fields
public struct Infuser
{
private ImmutableValueType _Item;
// write-only properties provide the complement to the read-only properties of the immutable value type
public int ID
{
set { _Item._ID = value; }
}
public string Name
{
set { _Item._Name = value; }
}
public ImmutableValueType Produce()
{
return this._Item;
}
public void Reset(ImmutableValueType item)
{
this._Item = item;
}
public void Reset()
{
this._Item = new ImmutableValueType();
}
public static implicit operator ImmutableValueType(Infuser infuser)
{
return infuser.Produce();
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// use of object initializer syntax made possible by the Infuser type
var item = new ImmutableValueType.Infuser
{
ID = 123,
Name = "ABC",
}.Produce();
Console.WriteLine("ID={0}, Name={1}", item.ID, item.Name);
}
}

Each time you get/set property you need to set default value call InitDefaultValues() method
private string _numberDecimalSeparator;
public string NumberDecimalSeparator
{
get
{
InitDefaultValues();
return _numberDecimalSeparator;
}
set
{
InitDefaultValues();
_numberDecimalSeparator = value;
}
}
...
private void InitDefaultValues()
{
if (!_inited)
{
_inited = false;
var ci = CultureInfo.CurrentCulture;
_numberDecimalSeparator = ci.With(x => x.NumberFormat).Return(x => x.NumberDecimalSeparator, ".");
...
}
}

Kinda dumb, but works
public readonly static float default_value = 1;
public struct YourStruct{
public float yourValue{
get {
return _yourValue + default_value;
}
set {
_yourValue= value - default_value;
}
}
public float _yourValue;
}

My solution. It works as well.
public struct DisplayOptions
{
public bool isUpon;
public bool screenFade;
public static DisplayOptions Build()
{
// Return default value
return new DisplayOptions(true, true);
}
DisplayOptions(bool isUpon, bool screenFade)
{
this.isUpon = isUpon;
this.screenFade = screenFade;
}
public DisplayOptions SetUpon(bool upon)
{
this.isUpon = upon;
return this;
}
public DisplayOptions SetScreenFade(bool screenFade)
{
this.screenFade = screenFade;
return this;
}
}
Use default value
// Use default
UIMaster.Instance.StartScreen("Screen 2", DisplayOptions.Build());
// Use custome
UIMaster.Instance.StartScreen("Screen 2", DisplayOptions.Build().SetScreenFade(false));
UIMaster.Instance.StartScreen("Screen 2", DisplayOptions.Build().SetUpon(false));

this should work
public struct MyStruct
{
private string myName;
private int? myNumber;
private bool? myBoolean;
private MyRefType myType;
public string MyName
{
get { return myName ?? "Default name"; }
set { myName= value; }
}
public int MyNumber
{
get { return myNumber ?? 42; }
set { myNumber = value; }
}
public bool MyBoolean
{
get { return myBoolean ?? true; }
set { myBoolean = value; }
}
public MyRefType MyType
{
get { return myType ?? new MyRefType(); }
set { myType = value; }
}
//optional
public MyStruct(string myName = "Default name", int myNumber = 42, bool myBoolean = true)
{
this.myType = new MyRefType();
this.myName = myName;
this.myNumber = myNumber;
this.myBoolean = myBoolean;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class MyStructTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMyStruct()
{
var myStruct = default(MyStruct);
Assert.AreEqual("Default name", myStruct.MyName);
Assert.AreEqual(42, myStruct.MyNumber);
Assert.AreEqual(true, myStruct.MyBoolean);
Assert.IsNotNull(myStruct.MyType);
}
}

This may work...
public struct MyStruct
{
private bool _name;
public string myName
{
get { return (_name ? myName : "Default name"); }
set { _name = true; myName = value; }
}
private bool _num;
public int myNumber
{
get { return (_num ? myNumber : 42); }
set { _num = true; myNumber = value; }
}
private bool _bool;
public bool myBoolean
{
get { return (_bool ? myBoolean : true); }
set { _bool = true; myBoolean = value; }
}
private bool _type;
public MyRefType myType
{
get { return _type ? myType : new MyRefType(); }
set { _type = true; myType = value; }
}
}
Nevermind StackOverflowException

There is a workaround
public struct MyStruct
{
public MyStruct(int h = 1, int l = 1)
{
high = h;
low = l;
}
public int high;
public int low;
}

Correct use of Properties to maintain a HUD in a nested Form?

Edit 1
Is it possible to do this with get/set? Something like the below? This works for me but I am worried I am missing something not to mention all the staticness.
///<summary>
/// Class to track and maintain Heads Up Display information
///</summary>
public static class HUD
{
///<summary>
///Declare variables to store HUD values
///</summary>
private static string _lastName;
private static string _firstName;
private static string _middleName;
private static string _suffix;
private static string _sSN;
private static string _personID;
private static string _masterID;
private static string _enrollmentID;
private static string _planID;
// Store a reference to THE form that holds the HUD and is visible
private static FrmModuleHost _frmHUDHost;
public static string PersonId
{
get { return _personID; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_PersonID.Text = value;
_personID = value;
}
}
public static string SSn
{
get { return _sSN; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_SSN.Text = value;
_sSN = value;
}
}
public static string MiddleName
{
get { return _middleName; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_MiddleName.Text = value;
_middleName = value;
}
}
public static string FirstName
{
get { return _firstName; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_FirstName.Text = value;
_firstName = value;
}
}
public static string LastName
{
get { return _lastName; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_LastName.Text = value;
_lastName = value;
}
}
public static string Suffix
{
get { return _suffix; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_SuffixName.Text = value;
_suffix = value;
}
}
public static string MasterID
{
get { return _masterID; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_MasterID.Text = value;
_masterID = value;
}
}
public static string EnrollmentID
{
get { return _enrollmentID; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_EnrollmontPeriod.Text = value;
_enrollmentID = value;
}
}
public static string PlanID
{
get { return _planID; }
set
{
FrmHudHost.tbxHUD_PlanID.Text = value;
_planID = value;
}
}
public static FrmModuleHost FrmHudHost
{
get { return _frmHUDHost; }
set { _frmHUDHost = value; }
}
}
Original Post
I have a class that is responsible for updating a Heads Up Display of current selected member info. My class looks like this -->
public static class HUD
{
///<summary>
///Declare variables to store HUD values
///</summary>
public static string _lastName;
public static string _firstName;
public static string _middleName;
public static string _suffix;
public static string _sSN;
public static string _personID;
public static string _masterID;
public static string _enrollmentPeriod;
public static string _planID;
///<summary>
/// Method to update the display with current information
///</summary>
public static void UpdateHUD (FrmModuleHost frm, params String[] args)
{
frm.tbxHUD_LastName.Text = args[0];
_lastName = args[0];
frm.tbxHUD_FirstName.Text = args[1];
_firstName = args[1];
frm.tbxHUD_MiddleName.Text = args[2];
_middleName = args[2];
frm.tbxHUD_SSN.Text = args[3];
_sSN = args[3];
frm.tbxHUD_PersonID.Text = args[4];
_personID = args[4];
}
}
What I am trying to figure out is how I can tell what args are being passed. What you see below is what is called from the Search Page as that is all that is available at that point. The other 4 values will be loaded 1 at a time on various pages. A person HAS A enrollment which HAS A plan if that helps.
private void GetResults()
{
var lName = getCurrentRowVal("Last Name");
var fName = getCurrentRowVal("First Name");
var pID = getCurrentRowVal("Person ID");
var sSN = getCurrentRowVal("SSN");
var mName = getCurrentRowVal("Middle Name");
HUD.UpdateHUD(FrmWwcModuleHost, lName, fName, mName, sSN, pID);
}
Now when I call this from the Enrollment Page I will want everything to stay and add the EnrollmentID.
private void GetResults()
{
var enrollmentID = getCurrentRowVal("EnrollmentID");
HUD.UpdateHUD(FrmWwcModuleHost, enrollmentID);
}
My question is, How do I do that and know which arg[] index to call and not overwrite the existing values?
Is it as simple as always providing ALL parameters as they are set? So my call from the Enrollment Page would instead look like this -->
private void GetResults()
{
var enrollmentID = getCurrentRowVal("EnrollmentID");
HUD.UpdateHUD(FrmWwcModuleHost, HUD._lastName, HUD._firstName, HUD._middleName, HUD._sSN, HUD._personID, enrollmentID);
}
Thanks for any insights!

You'll really need to ditch the params style call and establish real parameters for your methods. Just create multiple overloads for your most common call signatures.

I did not see a reference to a particular version of .net you are using. Here is how I handle this in .net 3.5.
First create a class for passing the update values in, but make all of the properties nullable (since all of your items are string, they are already nullable). If the values are nullable, add actual property setters, and LastNameChanged properties.
public class UpdateData {
public string LastName { get; set;};
public string FirstName { get; set;};
public string MiddleName { get; set;};
...
}
Now your method signature looks like this:
public static void UpdateHUD (FrmModuleHost frm, UpdateData data)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(data.FirstName) {
frm.tbxHUD_LastName.Text = data.FirstName;
_lastName = data.FirstName;
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(data.LastName) {
frm.tbxHUD_FirstName.Text = data.LastName;
_firstName = data.FirstName;
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(data.MiddleName) {
frm.tbxHUD_MiddleName.Text = data.MiddleName;
_middleName = data.FirstName;
}
Next is the setting the UpdateData and calling the method:
UpdateHUD(FrmWwcModuleHost, new UpateData{ FirstName = "test1", LastName = "test2", ...});
Final note: you are using a lot of statics here. You might consider changing most of them. Move the static variables to an actual class with properties (but no statics), and reference the class in your code.

Perhaps instead of
params String[] args
you should do
params KeyValuePair<String,String>[] args
where any given param's properies would be assigned something like this:
Key = "Last Name"
Value = "Hare"
Then inside your UpdateHUD method you could check to see what the Key of the parameter was so you would know which value was being passed.

You could also create a separate class to pass in the params array. Something like:
public class HUDParam {
public HUDParam(paramName, paramValue) { /*[init code here...]*/ }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
}
Then:
HUD.UpdateHUD(frm, new HUDParam("FirstName", "Tom"),
new HUDParam("LastName", "Thompson");
In your update method, you can just check the name and set the appropriate value in your HUD.

C# 4.0 has optional params which are much different from the params keyword. Params keyword is literally no different at runtime than if you didn't have the params keyword at all. In other words, you just get an array of values with no way of knowing which are which. Params keyword is just a C# convenience at compile time.
Although I haven't used C# 4.0 optional parameters yet, I imagine they behave similarly to the way VB.NET optional parameters did in that you can specify a default value at the function and that default will be used if the caller doesn't specify it. But the caller still has to indicate (either with missing values or paramName:= syntax) which parameter they are specifying.
In your case I think you're better off using either normal named parameters and passing null when you don't need them, or pass a dictionary/hashtable instead.

You could pass the arguments with a Dictionary where you can assign a value to a certain name.
The cleanest version would be to make a method for each variable.
e.g.
void UpdateLastName(string name)
{
frm.tbxHUD_LastName.Text = _lastName = name;
}

If you can use Framework 4.0, you can use optional and named parameters. Until that time, you will need to pass all the arguments.
But, I think by your question you might misunderstand what's happening slightly. The arguments you send in params are going into the method as an argument. Their scope therefore is the method itself, so you not "overwriting" anything. The array that you used for the first call is gone (out of scope) and the array you use for the second call will have whatever you put in it. Best way to do optional parameters before 4.0 is using multiple method overloads.

If you have a name association with a value but possibly unknown name values this is a candidate for a Dictionary .
Optional parameters involve no less checking than checking a dictionary if a key exists or if a member of a class is null. Since there already exists a primitive for this and it's more flexible I see no reason to use variable parameters or optional parameters.

What I would do is use an ananoymous type (which can be turned into a dictionary at runtime) and then changing the values which are present.
New function definition:
public static void UpdateHUD (FrmModuleHost frm, object args);
And client code:
UpdateHUD(frm, new {
MiddleName = "Jed",
SSN = "..." });
Using the code from Roy Osherove's Blog, this can be turned into a dictionary. The new implementation would be similar to:
var dictionary = MakeDictionary(args);
if ( dictionary.ContainsKey("SSN") ) { _sSN = dictionary["SSN"]; }
Of course, this will all be irrelevant when C# 4.0 comes out.