Develop Reference

How to refactor an abstract class that has public members/properties for each concrete type?

I am looking at some legacy code and have come across an abstraction that has properties for each of its derived/concrete types. I cannot share the exact code but please imagine that instead of it being a simple operation that there are numerous operations that are much more complex.
I have not come across anything like this before and have a lot of questions? First, is this a pattern that I am not aware of? If so, what is it? Second question, how should I refactor this so that it follows solid principles?
I will try my best to come up with a better example if needed.
public enum ToolType
{
Unknown = 0,
HRMonitor,
Dumbell,
SomeForceDevice
}
public abstract class ToolData
{
private ToolData()
{
IsValid = false;
this.ToolType = ToolType.Unknown;
}
public ToolData(ToolType toolType)
{
this.ToolType = toolType;
}
public ToolType ToolType { get; }
public virtual bool IsValid { get; protected set; } = true;
public double LinkQuality { get; set; }
public NullToolDataValue NullData => this as NullToolDataValue;
public DumbellDataValue DumbellData => this as DumbellDataValue;
public HeartRateDataValue HRData => this as HeartRateDataValue;
public SomeForceDataValue SomeForceData => this as SomeForceDataValue;
}
public class NullToolDataValue : ToolData
{
public NullToolDataValue() : base(ToolType.Unknown)
{
IsValid = false;
}
}
public class DumbellDataValue : ToolData
{
public double WeightValue { get; private set; }
public DumbellDataValue(double weightValue) : base(ToolType.Dumbell)
{
this.WeightValue = weightValue;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return WeightValue.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
}
}
public class HeartRateDataValue : ToolData
{
public int HeartRate { get; private set; }
public HeartRateDataValue(int heartRate) : base(ToolType.HRMonitor)
{
this.HeartRate = heartRate;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return HeartRate.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
}
}
public class SomeForceDataValue : ToolData
{
public double LeftHandForceValue { get; private set; }
public double RightHandForceValue { get; private set; }
public int LeftHandPosition { get; private set; }
public int RightHandPosition { get; private set; }
public SomeForceDataValue(double lefthandValue, double rightHandValue, int leftHandPosition, int rightHandPosition) : base(ToolType.SomeForceDevice)
{
this.LeftHandForceValue = lefthandValue;
this.LeftHandPosition = leftHandPosition;
this.RightHandForceValue = rightHandValue;
this.RightHandPosition = rightHandPosition;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{LeftHandForceValue.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)}" +
$"| {LeftHandPosition.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)}" +
$"| {RightHandForceValue.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)}" +
$"| {RightHandPosition.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)}";
}
}
It is being used/consumed via something like the below which it too is missing some inheritance and things for brevity:
public class DumbellExcercise
{
public void ToolDataReceived(ToolData data)
{
if (data?.DumbellData == null) return;
//add value to some collection
Collection.Add(data.DumbellData.WeightValue);
}
}
public class HRExcercise
{
public void ToolDataReceived(ToolData data)
{
if (data?.HRData == null) return;
//add value to some collection
Collection.Add(data.HRData.HeartRate);
}
}

Okay, I'm going to give a shot at answering - hopefully this will help.
First up, ToolData shouldn't contain any References/Enums/whatever that list its subtypes. So first on the chopping block: all the lambda properties that cast the object as a specific subtype. I can kinda understand the appeal - you know an instance of ToolType happens to be a FloobieTool, so you call instance.FloobieTool and magically get a FloobieTool cast. But... well, there are problems that come with it, not the least is that you're breaking Opened/Closed Principle. Nothing wrong with making the person calling the class cast it explicitly with (FloobieTool)instance if they know they're working with a FloobieTool.
Next up: the ToolType. Why do you need this? You can tell if your instance of ToolData is a FloobieTool by simply doing an 'is' check in an IF condition:
void SomeFunc(ToolData toolData)
{
if (!(toolData is FloobieTool)) throw new Exception("Non-Floobie!");
// more code
}
I mean, what does that enumeration actually get you? Because it has a definite cost: it has to be kept in-sync with the list of classes that implement ToolData.
Also, the part in ToolDataReceived() for each of those Exercise classes seems... weird. I mean, you've got an exercise, and you're passing in ToolData. Why are you storing the amount of the Dumbell exercise? As opposed to just storing the ToolData. I mean, you're going through quite a bit of testing/casting/etc, just to add the dumbbell weight to a Collection. Any reason you can't just store the ToolData instance and call it a day? If you really need to specifically store Dumbbell info, you could do something like:
public class DumbbellExercise
{
List<DumbbellDataValue> dumbbellData = new List<DumbbellDataValue>();
public void AddToolData(ToolData toolData)
{
if (toolData is DumbbellDataValue)
this.dumbbellData.Add((DumbbellDataValue)toolData);
}
}
Hopefully that helps - it's tough to go into too many details when we're working off an abstracted example of your actual problem :-)

Having seen your edits, I believe even more firmly that the way to refactor this code is to use pattern matching. Pattern matching requires at least C# 7.0 so I'll include an almost-as-good way to do it pre-7.0 versions.
Step 1
Mark the properties obsolete using ObsoleteAttribute and pass true for the error parameter.
[Obsolete("Use pattern matching instead.", true)]
public NullToolDataValue NullData => this as NullToolDataValue;
[Obsolete("Use pattern matching instead.", true)]
public DumbellDataValue DumbellData => this as DumbellDataValue;
[Obsolete("Use pattern matching instead.", true)]
public HeartRateDataValue HRData => this as HeartRateDataValue;
[Obsolete("Use pattern matching instead.", true)]
public SomeForceDataValue SomeForceData => this as SomeForceDataValue;
This will make it a compiler error to use them in any code processed by the compiler. If you're doing any reflection on them, you'll get a runtime exception instead (after step 3 is complete) if you don't also change that code.
Step 2
Modify every call site that uses those properties to use pattern matching instead. If all you're doing is what you showed in the question, is should be as simple as this:
public class DumbellExcercise
{
public void ToolDataReceived(ToolData data)
{
if (data is DumbellDataValue dumbell)
Collection.Add(dumbell.WeightValue);
// OR
if (!(data is DumbellDataValue dumbell))
return;
Collection.Add(dumbell.WeightValue);
}
}
The second variation is not as pretty because the condition has to be parenthesized before it can be negated (hey, at least VB has the IsNot keyword; go figure) but you get the same early return that the existing code has.
It looks like you're using at least C# 6.0 because you're using the null-coalescing operator (?.), but if you're not using at least 7.0, you can do this, instead:
public class DumbellExcercise
{
public void ToolDataReceived(ToolData data)
{
DumbellDataValue dumbell = data as DumbellDataValue;
if (dumbell != null)
Collection.Add(dumbell.WeightValue);
// OR
DumbellDataValue dumbell = data as DumbellDataValue;
if (dumbell == null)
return;
Collection.Add(dumbell.WeightValue);
}
}
Step 3
Remove the properties. If there are no more compiler errors, the properties aren't being used, so you're free to get rid of them.
Additional Note
The IsValid property has a strange duality to it. It can be assigned by the derived classes but it's also virtual so it can be overridden, too. You really should pick one. If it were my decision, I'd keep it virtual and make it read-only.
public abstract class ToolData
{
// Continue to assume it's true...
public virtual bool IsValid => true;
}
public class NullToolDataValue : ToolData
{
// ...and indicate otherwise as needed.
public override bool IsValid => false;
}

How to let an Attribute in property 'A' know the existence of property 'B'?

How to let an Attribute in one property know the existence of another property?
Lets say i have this class, and like this, many others:
public class MyClass
{
[CheckDirty] //a custom attribute (that it is empty for now)
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
}
Somewhere in our program, if we want to see if an object changed values on any CheckDirty property, for example lets say it is diferent from DB, MyPropertyUtils.GetPropertiesIfDirty() does this, giving us an array of changed propertys, on any property with that attribute:
PropertyInfo[] MyPropertyUtils.GetPropertiesIfDirty(SomeBaseObject ObjectFromDB, SomeBaseObject NewValues);
Perfect.
So, lets say A changed and in this case Info holds some information we need(in another class might be any other property). If we want 'A' we just do property.GetValue(NewValues, null);
But we dont want 'A's value, we want 'A' or CheckDirty to tell us where to read some data we want. How can i tell my attribute CheckDirty where to get the values from?
I was thinking in giving an expression to CheckDirty but an Attribute's argument "must be a constant expression, typeof expression or array creation expression of an attribute parameter type"(thats what VS says).
So I decided, "ok, lets give it a string with the property's name", and so my try failed:
(this is all the code we need to work on, the rest was just to give some kind of context example)
public class CheckDirty : Attribute
{
public String targetPropertyName;
public CheckDirty(String targetPropertyName)
{
this.targetPropertyName = targetPropertyName;
}
}
public class MyClass
{
//Code fails on this line
[CheckDirty(BoundPropertyNames.Info)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
public static class BoundPropertyNames
{
public static readonly string Info = ((MemberExpression)
((Expression<Func<MyClass, string>>)
(m => m.Info)
).Body
).Member.Name;
}
}
This is the error i get:
An attribute argument must be a constant expression, typeof expression or array creation expression of an attribute parameter type
We do NOT want to pass the name of the proprety as a String saing [CheckDirty("Info")] because that way if anyone in the future changes the class, and in concrete the property's name, no error would get thrown in compile time by it, only occuring the error in run time, when an "edit" to that field would occur. Or maybe it would just not do anything because it could not find the property.
Any idea how to not use the strongly typed string as a property name?

You may use something like this, first declare an interface that will be implemented by every class that need dirty checking:
interface IDirtyCheckPropertiesProvider {
string GetPropertyName(string dirtyProperty);
}
then implement it like that
class DataEntity : IDirtyCheckPropertiesProvider {
[CheckDirty]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Info { get; set; }
string GetPropertyName(string dirtyProperty) {
if (GetPropertyNameFromExpression(x => Id) == dirtyProperty)
return GetPropertyNameFromExpression(x => Info);
return null;
}
}
In class that will be responsible for handling dirty checks you must use this interface to get target property names.
There is a bit too much boilerplate that may be removed further by using Reflection API.
On the other hand using string for property names looks like more simple solution. If you use tool like Resharper - using string is a viable option - Resharper will automatically refactor string when you change property name.
Also for a long time string'ed property names were used in implementation of WPF INotifyPropertyChanged.
As comments suggested nameof is the best option in VS2015.

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.

How do you make an 'enum' that has data tied to it?

I have a Vote class and one of the properties it can have is a vote type. Such as unanimous, a 3/4 vote, a simply majority, etc. Each type needs to have a string associated with it which will describe the vote type (like "A simply majority requires 51% to pass" etc.). I need to pass these vote types/description in with my view model to my view and then I can make my drop down list with it.
Then, when the form that creates the vote is submitted I just need to bind the vote type (without description) to the Vote model (which is part of the view model).
I've only been using C# for a short time and I don't quite understand how the enums work in it. Perhaps enum is not the way to go about this.
public class VoteViewModel
{
public VoteViewModel()
{
Vote = new Vote();
}
public Vote Vote { get; set; }
public int EligibleVoters { get; set; }
}
And this is where I'll be putting the drop down.
<section class="vote-type">
<select name="">
<option value="">Select Vote Type</option>
</select>
<section class="vote-type-info">
<p class="vote-rules">To pass this vote, at least 51% of Eligible Voters must vote to approve it.</p>
</section>
</section>

Please notice I'm only showing for strings for it could be any type. In each case I mention how to extend it for more values if possible.
Using the enum as a key
You can use your enum type as a key for a dictionary (you want to be unique, so make it static and readonly in some helper class):
private static readonly Dictionary<MyEnum, string> _dict =
{
//Using dictionary initialization
{MyEnum.MyValue, "The text for MyValue"},
{MyEnum.MyOtherValue, "Some other text"},
{MyEnum.YetAnotherValue, "Something else"}
}
public static readonly Dictionary<MyEnum, string> Dict
{
get
{
return _dict;
}
}
And access the associated value:
string text = Dict[MyEnum.MyValue];
Or with:
string text;
if (Dict.TryGetValue(MyEnum.MyValue, out text))
{
//It has the value
}
else
{
//It doesn't have the value
}
This way you can access a string that is associated with the enum value. Then you can expose your Dictionary so that you can read the corresponding values.
You will need a complex type for storing more than one value. Just use your custom type isntead of string. Or if available you can use Tuples.
Accesing the Dictionary may mean an extra annoyance and hopefully it will not mean a threading problem too.
Enum.GetName
You can use Enum.GetName to read the name of the values of your enum:
string text = Enum.GetName(MyEnum.MyValue);
//text will have the text "MyValue"
//or
var some = MyEnum.MyValue;
string text = Enum.GetName(some);
Note: ToString() should work too.
Sadly, this will not work for something else than the string.
Also it has the drawback that you cannot put any text there (it has to be a valid identifier).
Custom Attributes
You will have to declare an attribute type:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field)]
public class EnumValueAttribute : System.Attribute
{
public readonly string _value;
public string Value
{
get
{
return _value;
}
}
public EnumValueAttribute(string value) // value is a positional parameter
{
//beware: value can be null...
// ...but we don't want to throw exceptions here
_value = value;
}
}
Now you apply the attribute to your enum:
public enum MyEnum
{
[EnumValue("The text for MyValue")]
MyValue = 1,
[EnumValue("Some other text")]
MyOtherValue = 2,
[EnumValue("Something else")]
YetAnotherValue = 3
}
Lastly you will need to read the attribute back:
public static string GetValue(MyEnum enumValue)
{
FieldInfo fieldInfo = typeof(MyEnum).GetField(enumValue.ToString());
if (!ReferenceEquals(fieldInfo, null))
{
object[] attributes = fieldInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(EnumValueAttribute), true);
if (!ReferenceEquals(attributes, null) && attributes.Length > 0)
{
return ((EnumValueAttribute)attributes[0]).Value;
}
}
//Not valid value or it didn't have the attribute
return null;
}
Now you can call it:
string text1 = GetValue(MyEnum.MyValue);
//text1 will have the text "MyValue"
//or
var some = MyEnum.MyValue;
string text2 = GetValue(some);
You can add more fields to your attribute class and use them to pass any other value you may need.
But this requires reflexion, and it may not be available if you are running in a sandbox. Also it will retrieve the attributes each time, creating some short lived objects in the proccess.
Emulate Enum
You can emulate an enum with a sealed class that has no public constructor and exposes static readonly instances of itself:
public sealed class MyEnumEmu
{
private static readonly string myValue = new MyEnumEmu("The text for MyValue");
private static readonly string myOtherValue = new MyEnumEmu("Some other text");
private static readonly string yetAnotherValue = new MyEnumEmu("Something else");
public static MyEnumEmu MyValue
{
get
{
return myValue;
}
}
public static MyEnumEmu MyOtherValue
{
get
{
return myOtherValue;
}
}
public static MyEnumEmu YetAnotherValue
{
get
{
return yetAnotherValue;
}
}
private string _value;
private MyEnumEmu(string value)
{
//Really, we are in control of the callers of this constructor...
//... but, just for good measure:
if (value == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
}
else
{
_value = value;
}
}
public string Value
{
get
{
return _value;
}
}
}
Use it as always:
var some = MyEnumEmu.MyValue;
And access the associated value:
string text = MyEnumEmu.MyValue.Value;
//text will have the text "MyValue"
//or
string text = some.Value;
This is the more flexible of all, you can either use a complex type instead of string or add extra fields for passing more than a single value.
But... it is not really an enum.

You could create a "constant" dictionary (or rather readonly static, since you can't create a constant dictionary) around your Enum.
public enum VoteType { Unanimous = 1, SimpleMajority = 2, ... }
public static readonly Dictionary<VoteType, string> VoteDescriptions = new Dictionary<VoteType, string>
{
{ VoteType.Unanimous, "Unanimous description" },
{ VoteType.SimpleMajority, "Simple majority" },
...
};

public class Vote()
{
public VoteType VoteSelectType { get; set; }
}
public enum VoteType
{
[Display(Name = "Enter Text Here")]
unanimous = 1,
[Display(Name = "Enter Text Here")]
threequatervote = 2,
[Display(Name = "Enter Text Here")]
simplymajority = 3
}
Goto here this is pretty much your solution
How do I populate a dropdownlist with enum values?

You can use enums if you want but you need to decide how to make the link between the enum value and what you want to display. For example, an enum value of SimpleMajority you would want displayed as "Simple Majority". One way to do this is using the Description attribute and a helper class as described here.
However, you might find it easier to set up a lightweight collection class to store vote type values and their description. This could be as simple as a Dictionary<int, string> You will probably find this a more straightforward approach.

Since you have the type and description I'll better suggest you to create a class that wraps up both instead of enum. The advantage is you can reduce more work and it's very flexible.
public class VoteType
{
public string Name{ get; set; }
public string Description{ get; set; }
}
Now your Vote class will have reference to this VoteType.
public class Vote
{
...
public VoteType Type{ get; set; }
}
In your VoteViewModel you better have a class that contains all the VoteTypes.
public class VoteViewModel
{
...
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> VoteTypes{ get; set; }
}
Now you can easily bind the VoteTypes in a dropdownlist.
#model VoteViewModel
#Html.DropDiwnListFor(m => m.VoteTypes,...)

I have used this before, it is really handy.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13821/Adding-Descriptions-to-your-Enumerations
In short what it lets you do is:
public enum MyColors{
[Description("The Color of my skin")]
White,
[Description("Bulls like this color")]
Red,
[Description("The color of slime")]
Green
}
and then get the description back by simply calling:
String desc = GetDescription(MyColor.Green);
It does use reflection though, so there is a tradeoff between simplicity and a slight performance hit. Most of the time I'd take the performance hit...

How to set the value of a read-only property with generic getters and setters?

Not sure if I worded this correctly ... but I have the following code:
public Guid ItemId
{
get;
}
public TransactionItem()
{
this.ItemId = Guid.Empty;
}
Naturally I am getting a read-only issue ... which I do understand. Is there anyway to set this property value without having to do something like the below:
Guid _itemId = Guid.Empty;
public Guid ItemId
{
get
{
return _itemId;
}
set
{
_itemId = value;
}
}
or
public Guid ItemId
{
get;
internal set;
}
Thanks in advance!

I would go for this:
public Guid ItemId
{
get;
private set; // can omit as of C# 6
}
public TransactionItem()
{
this.ItemId = Guid.Empty;
}
Of course, it would be open for setting within this class, but since you are writing it I hope you have the sense to not break your own intentions...
In my opinion, things like readonly properties, are mostly important when seen from the outside. From the inside, it doesn't really matter what it is, cause there, you are the King =)

If you just need the ItemId property to be read-only for external users of your class, then Svish's answer is the way to go.
If you need ItemId to be read-only within the class itself then you'll need to do something like this:
private readonly Guid _ItemId
public Guid ItemId
{
get { return _ItemId; }
}
public TransactionItem()
{
_ItemId = Guid.Empty;
}

You can use readonly keyword
public readonly Guid ItemId;
public TransactionItem()
{
this.ItemId = Guid.Empty;
}

I'm afraid your question isn't very clear - but if there isn't a property setter defined, then you certainly can't call it.
Are you actually after an automatically implemented read-only property, allowing setting just within the constructor? If so, I'm afraid that's not available, much as I'd like it.
Just to expand on what I mean, I'd like to be able to do:
// Not valid in C# - yet!
public class Foo
{
// Autogenerated field would be readonly in IL.
public string Name { get; readonly set; }
public Foo (string name)
{
this.Name = name;
}
public void Bar()
{
// This would be invalid
this.Name = "No!";
}
}
Basically it would be "make a property like a readonly field."

Use a private setter, or set the backing field ?
(But, then you must make sure that the name of your backing field can be determined based on the property-name.
For instance by making sure that your backing field always has the same name as the property-name, but is prefixed with an underscore; like NHibernate does it using its access-strategies).