have a php code like this,going to convert it in to C#.
function isValid($n){
if (preg_match("/\d+/",$n) > 0 && $n<1000) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
Here is my try,BUT error shown Error is "expected class, delegate, enum, interface or struct error C#"
public string IsValidate(string Item)
{
string Result = Item;
try
{
Result = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Replace(InputTxt, #"(\\)([\000\010\011\012\015\032\042\047\134\140])", "$2");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
console.WriteLine(ex.Message)
}
return Result;
}
What is the error,Is there any other way to implement this better than my try ?
i got this snippet from here code
You haven't define this method inside a class/struct that is why you are getting this error. You may define this method inside a class.
public class MyValidator
{
public string IsValidate(string Item)
{
//Your code here
}
}
Later you can use it like:
MyValidator validator = new MyValidator();
validator.IsValid("Your string");
Also you are missing semicolon at the end of the Console.Write statement, plus 'c' for Console should be in uppercase
Edit:
Since in your php code, it looks like you are trying to see if the string passed is an integer and it is less than 1000, you may use the int.TryParse like the following:
public class MyValidator
{
public bool IsValidate(string Item)
{
string Result = Item;
int val;
if (int.TryParse(Item, out val) && val > 0 && val < 1000)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
In you main method you can do:
static void Main()
{
MyValidator validator = new MyValidator();
Console.WriteLine(validator.IsValidate("asdf123")); // This will print false
Console.WriteLine(validator.IsValidate("999")); //This will print true
Console.WriteLine(validator.IsValidate("1001")); //This will print false
}
In C# a method must be placed inside a class or struct:
public class Validator {
public string IsValidate(string item) {
...
}
}
In this case I would probably translate it like this:
public static class Validator {
public static bool IsValid(string item) {
int value;
return int.TryParse(item, out value)
&& value > 0 && value < 1000;
}
}
You could define your function inside a static class such that you dont have to create an instance of it before invoking the function. Like,
public static class Validator
{
public static string IsValidate(string item)
{
// ...
}
}
Then, you can call it using:
Validator.IsValidate("String to validate")
EDIT: You could then check that your function is returning what you expect by doing:
if(Validator.IsValidate("String to validate") == "Expected result")
{
/* Logic to be executed here */
}
Related
I wrote a function in c# which initially returned a named tuple.
But now, I only need one field of this tuple and I would like to keep the name because it helps me to understand my code.
private static (bool informationAboutTheExecution, bool field2thatIdontNeedAnymore) doSomething() {
// do something
return (true, false);
}
This function compile. But It's the following function that I want
private static (bool informationAboutTheExecution) doSomething() {
// do something
return (true);
}
the error messages:
Tuple must containt at least two elements
cannot implcitly convvert type 'bool' to '(informationAboutTheExecution,?)
Has somebody a solution to keep the name of the returned value?
I just want to add another option, althought he out is the easiest workaround and Marc explained already why it's not possible. I would simply create a class for it:
public class ExecutionResult
{
public bool InformationAboutTheExecution { get; set; }
}
private static ExecutionResult DoSomething()
{
// do something
return new ExecutionResult{ InformationAboutTheExecution = true };
}
The class can be extended easily and you could also ensure that it's never null and can be created with factory methods like these for example:
public class SuccessfulExecution: ExecutionResult
{
public static ExecutionResult Create() => new ExecutionResult{ InformationAboutTheExecution = true };
}
public class FailedExecution : ExecutionResult
{
public static ExecutionResult Create() => new ExecutionResult { InformationAboutTheExecution = false };
}
Now you can write code like this:
private static ExecutionResult DoSomething()
{
// do something
return SuccessfulExecution.Create();
}
and in case of an error(for example) you can add a ErrorMesage property:
private static ExecutionResult DoSomething()
{
try
{
// do something
return SuccessfulExecution.Create();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// build your error-message here and log it also
return FailedExecution.Create(errorMessage);
}
}
You cannot, basically. You can return a ValueTuple<bool>, but that doesn't have names. You can't add [return:TupleElementNamesAttribute] manually, as the compiler explicitly does not let you (CS8138). You could just return bool. You can do the following, but it isn't any more helpful than just returning bool:
private static ValueTuple<bool> doSomething()
=> new ValueTuple<bool>(true);
Part of the problem is that ({some expression}) is already a valid expression before value-tuple syntax was introduced, which is why
private static ValueTuple<bool> doSomething()
=> (true);
is not allowed.
If you must name your return, you can do this:
private static void doSomething(out bool information) {
// do something
information = true;
}
then call it with
bool result;
doSomething(out result);
I'm trying to make a method, MethodA, only accessible when bool, executable, is true. Otherwise an other method, MethodB, is accessible. For example:
private bool executable = true;
public int MethodA(); <-- // Is accessible from outside of the class because executable is true
public string MethodB() <-- // Is not accessible because executable is true
The main reason I'm trying to do this is because the 2 methods return 2 different types. So my question is, is this even possible?
Option #1
You may be able to get what you want using Polymorphism and Generics. This would also allow you to add additional method strategies if needed.
public interface IMethodStrategy<out T>
{
T DoSomething();
}
public class MethodOneStrategy : IMethodStrategy<string>
{
public string DoSomething()
{
return "This strategy returns a string";
}
}
public class MethodTwoStrategy : IMethodStrategy<int>
{
public int DoSomething()
{
return 100; // this strategy returns an int
}
}
// And you would use it like so...
static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool executable = true;
object result = null;
if (executable)
{
MethodOneStrategy methodA = new MethodOneStrategy();
result = methodA.DoSomething();
}
else
{
MethodTwoStrategy methodB = new MethodTwoStrategy();
result = methodB.DoSomething();
}
}
Option #2
Another option could be a simple proxy method to wrap the worker methods.
// proxy class to wrap actual method call with proxy call
public class MethodProxy
{
public object DoMethodWork(bool executable)
{
if (executable)
{
return MethodA();
}
else
{
return MethodB();
}
}
private int MethodA()
{
return 100; // returns int type
}
private string MethodB()
{
return "this method returns a string";
}
}
// used like so
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var methodProxy = new MethodProxy();
object result = methodProxy.DoMethodWork(true);
}
Use conditional compilation for this.
#if RELEASE
public string MethodB() ...
#endif
Although I have my doubts about whether you need this or not. Your rationale doesn't make much sense.
You can use different Build Configurations to manage your conditional compile symbols.
if(executable)
MethodA();
else
MethodB();
OR
if(executable)
MethodA();
MethodB();
not entirely sure what you are trying to do but this could be one way, probably not the most efficient way but could work depending on what you are trying to do?
public int MethodA(executable)
{
if(executable = true)
{
//do stuff
}
else
{
return -1;
}
}
public String MethodB(executable)
{
if(executable = false)
{
//do stuff
}
else
{
String error = "MethodB cannot be used right now";
return error;
}
}
I am new to c# coding.
I have two classes: frmItem and commonFun
commonFun contains a method like this:
public static int convertint(string value)
{
int pass = 0;
try
{
if (value != "") Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
catch
{
}
return pass;
}
I want call this method to frmItem class.
You can call it by:
int intReturn = commonFun.convertint(yourStringHere);
That's it.
What you forgot in your convertint method, is to convert the value with a variable to set its value. change your code to this one:
public static int convertint(string value)
{
int pass = 0;
try
{
if (value != "")
{
/* --> */ pass = Convert.ToInt32(value);
}
}
catch
{
}
return pass;
}
Then, make sure the commonFun class is public
And after that, in commonFun code:
string textToConvert= //something
int convertedInt = frmItem.convertint(textToConvert);
Hope it helped!
By the way, why don't you just use the Convert.ToInt32() Method inside your code? because for me the convertint method looks quiet unnecessary.
I implemented a code that read the value of a variable in a PLC. the value could be of whatever type (bool, string, int16, int32 and so on).
Actually I implemented this code using cast.
But now I saw that cast makes box/unboxing and that's a bad idea for a clean memory usage.
So I'm trying to make the same behavior but with a generic method type which is linked at run time.
So here is my code with the commentaries.
That works with all struct types(bool, int32) but not with class type (String), could you tell my what I missed so far.
namespace Template_String
{
class Program
{
public int num1 = 33;
public static string PLCstrvar = "PLCvarName";
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine((Int32)Readwrite.READ(PLCstrvar));//working with cast
Console.WriteLine(Readwrite.READImp2<Int32>(PLCstrvar));//Working with generics
Console.WriteLine(Readwrite.READImp2<String>(PLCstrvar));//not working
}
}
public static class Readwrite
{
//the actual code
public static object READ(String PLCVariableName, Boolean WorkingDATA = false)
{//my code return an type object which is not really good regarding box / unbox implementation
//I'd like to do something like
String returnstr = FINDSYMBOL(PLCVariableName, WorkingDATA);
if (returnstr != "")
{
return _plcClient.ReadSymbol(returnstr);
}
return "";
}
//the projected code
public static T READImp2<T>(String PLCVariableName, Boolean WorkingDATA = false) where T : new()
{//The new code uses generics but that doesn't work with String as they are Class and not struct as Boolean are
//I'd like to do something like
dynamic returnstr = new T();//resolved in runtime
returnstr = FINDSYMBOL(PLCVariableName, WorkingDATA);
if (returnstr != "")
{
return(T)_plcClient.ReadSymbol(PLCVariableName);
}
return (T)false;//not good
}
public static String FINDSYMBOL(String strvalueToreach, Boolean WorkingDATA = false)
{
String StrValueToReach = "";
if (!WorkingDATA)
{
for (int inc = 2; inc < 10; inc++)
{
StrValueToReach = strvalueToreach;
if (_plcClient.SymbolExists(StrValueToReach))
{
return StrValueToReach;
}
else
{
return "null";
}
}
}
return "null";
}
}
/EDIT That is a black box developped by XY developpers far away from me. This code is only used to make the code running without their code !!/
public static class _plcClient //PLC dynamic link !!dummy code implemented elsewhere!!
{
/* this code return if the symbole exist and its value in Int32, Int16, String, Boolean.... type.*/
private static string nullable="";
public static bool SymbolExists(string value) { return true;}
public static object ReadSymbol(String value) { return nullable = "toto"; }
}
}
Suppose I have a C# class that has multiple properties that all look like this:
private bool _var1Dirty = true;
private Double? _var1;
public Double? Var1
{
get
{
if (_var1Dirty)
{
_var1 = Method_Var1();
_var1Dirty = false;
}
return _var1;
}
}
And the only differences between each of these properties would be:
The type of return var (in this case Double?, but could just as easily be int, string, etc)
The method call - Method_Var1() (Each property would have a different one)
Is there any way I could write this as a custom class?
Something along the lines of:
public class Prop
{
public delegate T Func();
private bool _dirty = true;
private T _val;
public T Val
{
get
{
if (_dirty)
{
_val = Func;
_dirty = false;
}
return _val;
}
}
}
And then I could pass into it the:
Return type T
Method Func
(PS - I know this won't compile / is dead wrong, but I wanted to give an idea of what I'm looking for)
Any help / guidance would be really appreciated.
Thanks!!!
You're close. You can do something along the lines of this:
public class Dirty<T>
{
public Dirty(Func<T> valueFactory)
{
this.valueFactory = valueFactory;
dirty = true;
}
private Func<T> valueFactory;
private bool dirty;
private T value;
public T Value
{
get
{
if (dirty)
{
value = valueFactory();
dirty = false;
}
return value;
}
}
}
And you consume it like this:
Dirty<double?> dirtyDouble = new Dirty<double?>(() => SomethingThatReturnsADouble());
double? value = dirtyDouble.Value;
I'm not sure what the dirty checking actually does, but if you need someone more complicated than a bool you can always turn it into some Func<T> the checks for dirtiness.
Edit:
Given #mikez comment and your answer, you can save yourself the creation of the Dirty<T> class by using the built in Lazy<T>, which also guarantess thread safety:
public class F
{
private Lazy<double?> lazyDouble = new Lazy<double?>(() =>
MethodThatReturnsNullableDouble(), true);
public double? Value
{
get
{
return lazyDouble.Value;
}
}
}