Develop Reference

Base() and This() in constructors. (Chained constructors)

I have a question regards chaining constructors I read some question on StackOverflow and some c# articles but I cannot understand the topic fully. So I have a BaseClass that is inherited by DerivedClass. In the DerivedClass, I have no argument constructor but it's calling the base constructor using: base() and it also passing a value. Is this the primary purpose of the base keyword used in the constructor to pass a value to the inherited class from the derived one or is something more out there. And also in the derived class, we have a second constructor that takes 1 parameter and its using: this(). I can't understand why when I remove: this() from this constructor "VS" tells me "There is no argument given that corresponds to the required formal parameter "i" of BaseClass.BaseClass(int) ? Why I can't just have one argument constructor in the DerivedClass without using this()?
public class BaseClass
{
protected int _Num;
public BaseClass(int i)
{
_Num = i;
}
public int Num { get => this._Num ; set => _Num = value; }
}
public class DerivedClassA : BaseClass
{
private string _Name;
private int _AnotherValue;
public string Name { get => this._Name ; set => this._Name = value; }
public int AnotherValue { get => this._AnotherValue; set => this._AnotherValue = value; }
public DerivedClassA() : base(123)
{
_Name = "testing";
}
public DerivedClassA(int param2) : this() <-- Why i can't compile the program without the this() keyword here ?
{
AnotherValue = param2;
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
DerivedClassA objA = new DerivedClassA(5);
}
}

I can't find a duplicate that exactly matches, so I'll provide an answer.
Imagine these classes:
public class Base
{
public Base()
{
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public Derived()
{
}
}
Try it online
When you initialize a derived class, you have to first initialize the base. In our example above, the Base class has a parameterless constructor, so the derived class can implicitly call it. If we add a base second constructor, this logic remains true, and the parameterless constructor will still be implicitly called:
public class Base
{
public Base()
{
}
public Base(int a)
{
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public Derived()
{
}
}
Try it online
But if we take away the parameterless constructor, Derived must now call the base constructor explicitly:
public class Base
{
public Base(int a)
{
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public Derived() : base(1)
{
}
}
Try it online
So what happens if we add an extra derived class constructor? Well, that also has to call the base class (either directly, or indirectly):
public class Base
{
public Base(int a)
{
// this method body is executed first
}
}
public class DerivedA : Base
{
public DerivedA(string name, int val) : base(val)
{
// this method body is executed second (last if you used this constructor, e.g. new DerivedA("hello", 1) )
}
public DerivedA() : this("test", 5) // this will call the constructor above, which will first call base. So the final chain is: base, constructor above, this constructor
{
// this method body is executed third (last if you used this constructor, e.g. new DerivedA() )
}
}
public class DerivedB : Base
{
public DerivedB(string name, int val) : base(val)
{
}
public DerivedB() : base(5) // this will call the base constructor, and then this constructor. The constructor above will not be used.
{
}
}
Try it online
Note that all classes have a parameterless constructor when no other constructor is defined, so the following two examples are equivalent:
public class BaseA
{
}
public class BaseB
{
public BaseB()
{
}
}
You'll note that SharpLab shows the compiler removed the empty constructor from BaseB() since it's superfluous.
Finally, a derived class without an explicitly defined constructor, will still call the base class constructor implicitly:
public class Base
{
public Base()
{
// this method body is executed first
Console.WriteLine("Base constructor");
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
}
Try it online
So to summarise: unless your base class has a parameterless constructor, your derived class constructors have to either call a base constructor directly, or indirectly through another derived class constructor. Obviously you only need to call a single base constructor method, as with any other class instantiation. You don't need matching derived methods for each base method, so long as you can construct the base with the values you do have.

Use derived class property in base class constructor

In following code, I need Base class constructor to use Derived class property ServiceUrl. I cannot define ServiceUrl as static as it's value is computed based on Derived class constructor argument. I cannot pass ServiceUrl as constructor argument to Base class since the computation is not as trivial as illustrated and it may require access other fields in Base/Derived classes.
Any suggestions for the best way out? I have permissions to make any change to Base and Derived class structures to attain the purpose.
abstract class Base
{
public abstract string ServiceUrl { get; }
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine(ServiceUrl);
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public override string ServiceUrl { get; private set; }
public Derived(string rootUrl) : base()
{
ServiceUrl = rootUrl + "/service";
}
}

The base class constructor will always be called before the derived class constructor. Therefore, there are exactly two solutions:
Use a parameter in the constructor of your base class:
abstract class Base
{
public string ServiceUrl { get; }
public Base(string serviceUrl)
{
ServiceUrl = serviceUrl;
Console.WriteLine(ServiceUrl);
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public Derived(string rootUrl) : base(rootUrl + "/service")
{
}
}
Don't use the variable in the constructor. Use it at a later point.

Derived class instantiation in abstract base class in C#

My aim is to write an abstract base class which contains a method for deriving “child instances”. In this method already some computation is done which is common in all deriving classes.
The difficulty is that the base class is not able to create the child class on its own. So I introduced a type parameter T in my base class and a protected abstract method which shall return an instance of T.
public abstract class Base<T> where T : Base<T>
{
public T GetChild()
{
string param = ComplexComputation();
return NewInstanceFrom(param);
}
protected abstract T NewInstanceFrom(string param);
}
// --- somewhere else: ---
public class Derivative : Base<Derivative>
{
public Derivative() { }
protected sealed override Derivative NewInstanceFrom(string param)
{
return new Derivative(param);
}
private Derivative(string param)
{
// some configuration
}
}
The disadvantage of this approach is that I cannot ensure that NewInstanceFrom is only invoked by the base class. It could also be invoked by classes inheriting from Derivative. That’s what I want to avoid.
So I could encapsulate the functionality in a private class or delegate:
public abstract class Base<T> where T : Base<T>
{
public T GetChild()
{
string param = ComplexComputation();
return subElementDerivator(param);
}
protected Base<T>(Func<string, T> subElementDerivator)
{
this.subElementDerivator = subElementDerivator;
}
private Func<string, T> subElementDerivator;
}
// --- somewhere else: ---
public class Derivative : Base<Derivative>
{
public Derivative()
: base(deriveSubElement)
{
}
private Derivative(string param)
: base(deriveSubElement)
{
// some configuration
}
private static Derivative deriveSubElement(string param)
{
return new Derivative(param);
}
}
But this introduces a new object.
Is there a simpler way to prevent access to a functionality (which the base class shall have access to) from heirs of Derivative?

You can use explicit interface implementation to hide your factory method. Any client can still call the Create method after casting but at least intellisense won't help developers.
public interface ISecretFactory<T>
{
T Create(string param);
}
public abstract class Base<T> where T : Base<T>, ISecretFactory<T>
{
public T GetChild()
{
// We are sure type T always implements ISecretFactory<T>
var factory = this as ISecretFactory<T>;
return factory.Create("base param");
}
}
public class Derivative : Base<Derivative>, ISecretFactory<Derivative>
{
public Derivative()
{
}
private Derivative(string param)
{
}
Derivative ISecretFactory<Derivative>.Create(string param)
{
return new Derivative(param);
}
}
public class SecondDerivative : Derivative
{
public void F()
{
// intellisense won't show Create method here.
// But 'this as ISecretFactory<Derivative>' trick still works.
}
}

The additional object can be avoided by moving the ComplexComputation to the constructor of the base class and making the GetChild method abstract to let the deriving class pick a correct constructor there.
But how to return the computed value param in base constructor to the invoking derivate constructor? A possibility is to use the out parameter modifier. But because in C# 5.0 we are unfortunately not able to declare the variables before (or within) the base constructor call, we need to take the parameter along in the derivative constructor.
public abstract class Base<T> where T : Base<T>
{
public abstract T GetChild();
protected Base(T parent, out string param)
{
param = ComplexComputation();
}
protected Base()
{
}
}
// --- somewhere else: ---
public class Derivative : Base<Derivative>
{
public sealed override Derivative GetChild()
{
string param;
return new Derivative(this, out param);
}
public Derivative() { }
private Derivative(Derivative parent, out string param)
: base(parent, out param)
{
// some configuration
}
}
In my case I could leave the param from the constructors away, instead I stored it in a public property.
This approach except the pesky necessary hack looks relatively clean to me, but it does not “scale” when multiple overloadings of GetChild are necessary.
Maybe in C# 6.0 it is possible to declare the param directly in the base constructor invocation. https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/magazine/dn683793.aspx

Protected generic class - is it supported?

I had a question on C# generics. I wish to store a generic type variable in my abstract class without declaring that type outside the class.
Below is the code sample. Please note that I do not wish to make the Param classes exposed outside the Calc class.
Thanks in advance.
- Dutta.
abstract class Base { }
abstract class Calc<T> where T : Base
{
protected Param Member; /* how can this be a made a generic declaration
* WITHOUT declaring this class like,
* class Calc<T, P>
* where T : Base
* where P : Param */
protected Calc(Param p)
{
this.Member = p;
}
protected abstract class Param { }
}
class MyBase : Base { }
class MyCalc : Calc<MyBase>
{
public MyCalc() : base(new MyParam()) { }
public void doSomething()
{
base.Member.A++; // fails on compilation
}
private class MyParam : Calc<MyBase>.Param
{
public int A;
public MyParam() { this.A = 0; }
}
}

You just need to cast it to the new type, because no matter what, the variable Member was declared as Param and it will always be accessed as Param:
((MyParam)base.Member).A++;
Secondly, you can fix up your MyParam class by changing from this:
MyParam : Calc<MyBase>.Param
To this:
MyParam : Param
Because Param is already Calc<MyBase> through generics and inheritance.

Thraka's answer is correct: if you don't want to use generics you need to cast. Just to add to it, in case what you're really trying to do looks something like this. Here's a set of classes that you can expose from your library, which will not be extensible by clients (unless they're running with full trust and can use reflection etc.!!) but which can be used in a type-safe way.
public abstract class SupportedPaymentMethod
{
protected internal SupportedPaymentMethod() { }
}
public sealed class Check : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public int CheckNumber { get; private set; }
public Check(int checkNumber)
: base()
{
CheckNumber = checkNumber;
}
}
public sealed class CreditCard : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public CreditCard()
: base()
{ }
}
public abstract class Payment<T>
where T : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public T Method { get; private set; }
protected internal Payment(T method)
{
Method = method;
}
}
public sealed CheckPayment : Payment<Check>
{
public CheckPayment(Check check)
: base(check)
{ }
}
public sealed CreditCardPayment : Payment<CreditCard>
{
public CreditCardPayment(CreditCard creditCard)
: base(creditCard)
{ }
}
Clients (i.e. code outside of your class library's assembly) will be able to instantiate a CheckPayment or a CreditCardPayment, but they will not be able to create a new class deriving from Payment<T>. So, it will not be possible for clients to create a CheatingPaymentMethod : Payment<Cheating>, for example. :)
Calls like your intended call to base.Member.A++ will now work:
var checkPayment = new CheckPayment(new Check(123456));
var checkNumber = checkPayment.Method.CheckNumber; // Success! :)

Base class used as an abstract method's parameter?

I'm trying to setup some classes like:
public abstract class AnimalBase {
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
public AnimalBase(string speciesName) {
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
public abstract void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals);
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName) {
this.CopyFrom(new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName));
}
public override void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
public void Cripple() {
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public class MammalDefaultClass : AnimalDefaultClass {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public MammalDefaultClass(string speciesName) {
using (var dataStore = theoreticalFactory.GetDataStore()) {
this.WalksUpright = dataStore[speciesName].WalksUpright;
}
}
}
Obviously that's not quite what I'm trying to accomplish, but the idea is:
Several classes (Mammal, Fish, Insect, etc) which inherit from an abstract base (Animal).
Each child class has a corresponding class it can use (in this case to populate mutable default values) as a parameter for a method which was defined as abstract in the base class.
Each of those corresponding classes (MammalDefaultClass, FishDefaultClass, InsectDefaultClass, etc) inherit from a common base class (AnimalDefaultClass).
Those AnimalDefaultClass derivatives exist because each class of Animal will have different properties, but by definition there will always be a class capable of getting those values for any Animal.
My problem is:
That overridden version of CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass) isn't being recognized as a valid override of the abstract CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass), even though MammalDefaultClass inherits from AnimalDefaultClass
Is it possible to specify a base class as an abstract member's parameter? Is there a simple* workaround? Or is this whole thing just laid out wrong?
-edit: my resolution-
After playing around some with MWB and sza's suggestions, I ended up having each subclass implement the method using the base parameter and then cast the input as appropriate, something like:
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
...
// implements the abstract method from the base class:
public override void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.CopyFrom((MammalDefaultClass)defaultVals);
}
public void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
}
This solution forces me to always implement a CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass) , which was the point of the putting the abstract method in the base class in the first place.

I think you can try Abstract Factory pattern. Basically you want to handle some construction logic during the creating the object, and for each different subtype of the Product, you can do differently.
public abstract class AnimalBase
{
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
protected AnimalBase(string speciesName)
{
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase
{
public bool WalksUpright { get; set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName)
{
}
public void Cripple()
{
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public interface IAnimalFactory<T> where T : AnimalBase
{
T CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName);
}
public class MammalFactory: IAnimalFactory<Mammal>
{
public Mammal CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName)
{
var mammal = new Mammal(speciesName);
var mammalDefault = new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName);
mammal.WalksUpright = mammalDefault.WalksUpright;
return mammal;
}
}
And when you want to create a sub-typed object, you can do e.g.
var mammalFactory = new MammalFactory();
var bunny = mammalFactory.CreateAnAnimal("Bunny");

So it turns out that even though MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, you cannot override a function that takes an AnimalDefaultClass with one that takes a MammalDefaultClass.
Consider this block of code:
public class Dinosaur : AnimalDefaultClass;
Dinosaur defaultDinosaur;
public void makeDinosaur(AnimalDefaultClass adc)
{
adc.CopyFrom(defaultDinosaur);
}
MammalDefaultClass m;
makeDinosaur(m);
In this case MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, so m can be passed to makeDinosaur as adc. Furthermore the CopyFrom for an AnimalDefaultClass only needs another AnimalDefault class, so I can pass in a dinosaur. But that class is actually a Mammal, and so needs a MammalDefaultClass, which dinosaur is not.
The work around would be to take the original type signature and throw an error if the argument is the wrong type (similar to how arrays act in Java).