I have a c# class with many variables, all initialized to null. When first accessed, I want to compute their value and return that (storing it to speed up future accesses). To do so, I've written code like
private T nullCheck<T>(T value, string how_to_compute) {
if (value == null) {
return compute(how_to_compute);
}
return value;
}
private string _variable1
public string variable1 {
get { _variable1 = nullCheck(_variable1, "someData"); return _variable1; }
set { _variable1 = value; }
}
...
With each variable having similar code to variable1
Is there some better way to do this? Like a custom annotation that automatically creates these near-identical getters and setters?
I'd suggest doing something like this:
public string variable1
{
get { _variable1 = _variable1 ?? compute("some_data"); return _variable1; }
set { _variable1 = value; }
}
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;
}
}
}
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.
I'm currently working on a solution that has a set of composite ViewModels that are mapped from domain models coming back from a set of data access services.
So far I've had a good amount of success with implementing INotifyPropertyChanged on the base ViewModel object and notifying the UI of changes to the property objects via property changed events.
Here's an example of a view model:
public class DisplayDataModel : INotifyPropertyChanged{
private DateTime _lastRefreshTime;
public DateTime LastRefreshTime {
get { return _lastRefreshTime; }
set {
_lastRefreshTime = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged(lddm => lddm.LastRefreshTime, PropertyChanged);
}
}
private string _lineStatus;
public string LineStatus {
get { return _lineStatus; }
set {
if (_lineStatus != value) {
_lineStatus = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged(lddm => lddm.LineStatus, PropertyChanged);
}
}
}
private ProductionBrickModel _productionBrick;
public ProductionBrickModel ProductionBrick {
get { return _productionBrick;}
set {
if (_productionBrick != value) {
_productionBrick = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged(lddm => lddm.ProductionBrick, PropertyChanged);
}
}
}
}
public class ProductionBrickModel{
public int? Set { get; set; }
public int? Theoretical { get; set; }
public int? Actual { get; set; }
public string LineName { get; set; }
public TimeSpan? ShiftOverage { get; set; }
public SolidColorBrush ShiftOverageBrush {
get {
if (ShiftOverage.HasValue && ShiftOverage.Value.Milliseconds < 0) {
return Application.Current.FindResource("IndicatorRedBrush") as SolidColorBrush;
}
return Application.Current.FindResource("IndicatorWhiteBrush") as SolidColorBrush;
}
}
public string ShiftOverageString { get { return ShiftOverage.HasValue ? ShiftOverage.Value.ToShortTimeSpanString() : ""; } }
}
So currently I'm firing notification events on the base model and not the production brick property, mostly because the production brick properties will be changing almost every refresh anyways.
Recently I've started cranking refresh times down to around 350ms and I'm seeing situations where the ShiftOverageBrush is changing to white for a split second even though the values are still negative.
My question is by going through and implementing INotifyPropertyChanged on the object types that make up the base view model will I gain any performance, or even possibly solve this issue? Or is this coming from something else entirely that I'm not understanding?
There are two obvious sources of inefficieny in your code:
1) ShiftOverageBrush is using FindResource every time it's called. Why not cache the brushes?
private SolidColorBrush _redBrush;
private SolidColorBrush IndicatorRedBrush
{
get{ return _redBrush ?? (_redBrush =
Application.Current.FindResource("IndicatorRedBrush") as SolidColorBrush));
}
... same for white brush
public SolidColorBrush ShiftOverageBrush {
get {
if (ShiftOverage.HasValue && ShiftOverage.Value.Milliseconds < 0) {
return IndicatorRedBrush;
}
return IndicatorWhiteBrush;
}
}
2) Using a lambda expression for NotifyPropertyChanged is convenient but is pretty slow since it uses reflection. If you're cranking up the update rate, then replace the lambdas with strings.
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;
}