Is it possible to create an object with a constructor parameter which returns a property value when referenced, without using dot notation? Here's a few examples:
public class myObject
{
public string myObject {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myObject = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
}
var a = new myObject("somevalue");
Console.WriteLine( myObject ); // outputs the string "SOMEVALUE"
Here's another attempt:
public class myInt
{
public int myInt {get; private set;}
public myInt(string tempInt)
{ this.myInt = Convert.ToInt32(tempInt);
}
}
var a = new myInt("3");
var b = a + a; // ends up being an int datatype value of 6
I know I could always do var b = a.myInt + a.myInt. I guess I could create a static class with a static function that converts a parameter each time to a result, but it wouldn't maintain state.
Just curious. It would make what I am actually trying to do much less difficult.
In the first case, yes. Override the ToString method.
public class myObject
{
public string myValue {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myValue = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return myValue;
}
}
In the second case, sort of. You shouldn't try to overload operators to offer unexpected behavior. Create a method to perform behavior that wouldn't make sense when reading the code. What you are suggesting (returning an int) would definitely not be expected by me to return an int (mostly because of the var rather than a strictly defined type). Using the + operator to return a new myInt object would make sense. Using the + operator return an int would not.
You could overload the + operator to return a new myInt object, and then also add an implicit cast to int. Just make sure it makes sense, and that it is readable.
Within the class, you could use:
public static implicit operator int(myInt m)
{
return myValue;
}
public static myInt operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
// requires constructor that takes int
return new myInt(left.myValue + right.myValue);
}
Of course, you could go the direct route, but again only use it when it makes it more readable and not less (note, just like methods operators cannot be overloaded simply by return type, so you'd have to pick between the two).
public static int operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
return left.myValue + right.myValue;
}
How about implicit conversions. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z5z9kes2(VS.71).aspx
Related
I have a class that I wanted dynamic on what type to accept, but still be of type float. I have added an example class below. Simply put, I want a class that can contain either Ints or Floats (or abstracts(Float)), but the type parameter doesn't like being assigned something that should actually fit it.
class Container<T:Float>
{
public function new(aValue:T = 0.0)
{
}
public function example():T
{
return 16.0;
}
In this example, I get two compiler errors. The fist one is the default value of the constructor new(aValue:T = 0.0. A simple fix is to set the value as dynamic, but I like my code neater than this. The second error is in the return value of example(). It won't let me return 16.0, as it is not a T instance.
My question: Is this doable and, if not, should I either use different class definitions for every type?
I think the issue here is that you don't really need the generic type "T".
Here's what I came up with given your constraints. The class "Container" is not generic, and merely contains a Float constructor. This still allows it, however, to accept any value that can be implicitly cast to Float, which includes any abstract as long as they define casting rules.
package ;
class Main
{
public static function main()
{
new Container(); // default
new Container(1); // Int
new Container(2.3); // Float
new Container(new UnifiesWithFloat(4.5)); // Float abstract
}
}
class Container
{
public function new(aValue:Float = 0.8)
{
trace('aValue is $aValue');
}
}
abstract UnifiesWithFloat(Float) from Float to Float
{
inline public function new(value:Float)
{
this = value;
}
}
The only way I could come up for this issue with a cast and with own resolving of the optional parameters.
class Test {
static function main() {
$type(new Container(1));
$type(new Container(1).example());
new Container(1).example();
$type(new Container(1.0));
$type(new Container(1.0).example());
new Container(1.0).example();
}
}
class Container<T:Float> {
public var value:T;
public function new(aValue:T) {
this.value = cast (aValue != null ? aValue : 0);
}
public function example():T {
return cast 16;
}
}
This logs:
Test.hx:3: characters 14-30 : Warning : Container<Int>
Test.hx:4: characters 14-40 : Warning : Int
Test.hx:7: characters 14-32 : Warning : Container<Float>
Test.hx:8: characters 14-42 : Warning : Float
In the section on handling Java Beans with Groovy of Groovy In Action, I found this script (slightly modified):
class Book{
String title
}
def groovyBook = new Book()
// explicit way
groovyBook.setTitle('What the heck, really ?')
println groovyBook.getTitle()
// short-hand way
groovyBook.title = 'I am so confused'
println groovyBook.title
There are no such methods in the class Book so how does that work ?
Yes, they are auto defined and calling book.title is actually calling book.getTitle()
See http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy+Beans
You can see this in action with the following script:
def debug( clazz ) {
println '----'
clazz.metaClass.methods.findAll { it.name.endsWith( 'Name' ) || it.name.endsWith( 'Age' ) }.each { println it }
}
class A {
String name
int age
}
debug( A )
// Prints
// public int A.getAge()
// public java.lang.String A.getName()
// public void A.setAge(int)
// public void A.setName(java.lang.String)
// Make name final
class B {
final String name
int age
}
debug( B )
// Prints
// public int B.getAge()
// public java.lang.String B.getName()
// public void B.setAge(int)
// Make name private
class C {
private String name
int age
}
debug( C )
// Prints
// public int C.getAge()
// public void C.setAge(int)
// Try protected
class D {
protected String name
int age
}
debug( D )
// Prints
// public int D.getAge()
// public void D.setAge(int)
// And public?
class E {
public String name
int age
}
debug( E )
// Prints
// public int E.getAge()
// public void E.setAge(int)
Several notes:
For all property fields(public ones only), there are autogenerated accesors.
Default visibility is public. So, you should use private/protected keyword to restrict accessor generation.
Inside an accessor there is direct field access. like this.#title
Inside a constructor you have direct access to! This may be unexpected.
For boolean values there are two getters with is and get prefixes.
Each method with such prefixes, even java ones are treated as accessor, and can be referenced in groovy using short syntax.
But sometimes, if you have ambiguous call there may be class cast exception.
Example code for 4-th point.
class A{
private int i = 0;
A(){
i = 4
println("Constructor has direct access. i = $i")
}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
int getI(){i}
}
def a = new A() // Constructor has direct access. i = 4
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
println a.i // 5
4-th note is important, if you have some logic in accessor, and want it to be applied every time you call it. So in constructor you should explicit call setI() method!
Example for 7
class A{
private int i = 0;
void setI(String val) { println("String version.")}
void setI(int val) { i = val; println("i is set to $i"); }
}
def a = new A()
a.i = 5 // i is set to 5
a.i = "1s5" // GroovyCastException: Cannot cast object '1s5' with class 'java.lang.String' to class 'int'
So, as I see property-like access uses first declared accessor, and don't support overloading. Maybe will be fixed later.
Groovy generates public accessor / mutator methods for fields when and only when there is no access modifier present. For fields declared as public, private or protected no getters and setters will be created.
For fields declared as final only accessors will be created.
All that applies for static fields analogously.
I need to be able to call a method and pass in an object of an unknown type
but then have the correct overload called. I also need a default implementation that accepts
object as its parameter type. What I'm seeing is that the default overload is the only one that ever gets used.
Here's the gist of what I'm trying to do:
class Formatter
{
private object Value;
public Formatter(object val){
Value = val;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Format(Value);
}
private string Format(object value)
{
return value.ToString();
}
private string Format(DateTime value)
{
return value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
}
Ok, so far so good. Now I want to be able to do this:
public static class FancyStringBuilder()
{
public static string BuildTheString()
{
var stringFormatter = new Formatter("hello world");
var dateFormatter = new Formatter(DateTime.Now);
return String.Format("{0} {1}", stringFormatter, dateFormatter);
}
}
The result of FancyStringBuilder.BuildTheString() is "hello world 2012-12-21 00:00:00.000", when I expected "hello world 20121221"
The problem is that the overload that accepts a DateTime is not being called, instead defaulting to the overload which accepts an object. How can I call the proper method without resorting to a messy switch statement?
In Formatter.ToString(), the override Formatter.Format(object) is always called. This is because the overload resolution happens at compile-time, not run-time. At compile-time, the only thing known about Value is that it's an object.
If you really want to distinguish incoming types, you'll need to do so in Formatter's constructor. In this case, rather than hanging on to the object, you could just call ToString() immediately and only store the formatted result:
class Formatter
{
string formattedValue;
public Formatter(object value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString();
}
public Formatter(DateTime value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
public string ToString()
{
return formattedValue;
}
}
Note that this does assume that your object isn't changing between the time you create the Formatter object and the time Formatter.ToString() is called, or at the very least that it's okay to take a snapshot of the string representation at the time the Formatter is created.
This also assumes that you know the incoming types at compile-time. If you want a truly run-time-only solution, you'll have to use the "is" operator or a typeof() comparison.
If your goal is just to provide custom ToString() formatting based on the incoming type, I'd probably do it using a list that maps from types to format strings:
static class Formatter
{
private static List<Tuple<Type, string>> Formats;
static Formatter()
{
Formats = new List<Tuple<Type, string>>();
// Add formats from most-specific to least-specific type.
// The format string from the first type found that matches
// the incoming object (see Format()) will be used.
AddMapping(typeof(DateTime), "yyyyMMdd");
// AddMapping(typeof(...), "...");
}
private static void AddMapping(Type type, string format)
{
Formats.Add(new Tuple<Type, string>(type, format));
}
public static string Format(object value)
{
foreach (var t in Formats)
{
// If we find a type that 'value' can be assigned to
// (either the same type, a base type, or an interface),
// consider it a match, and use the format string.
if (t.Item1.IsAssignableFrom(value.GetType()))
{
return string.Format(t.Item2, value);
}
}
// If we didn't find anything, use the default ToString()...
return value.ToString();
}
}
With that, calling code then looks like:
Console.WriteLine(
"{0} {1}",
Formatter.Format(DateTime.Now),
Formatter.Format("banana"));
I think this is because the class constructor takes an object as parameter, and then assign that object to variable Value which is also an object. There for calling Format(object) since Value is of type object
Try this
public override string ToString()
{
if(Value is DateTime)
return Format(Convert.ToDateTime(Value)); //this should call the right method
return Format(Value); //works for other non-custom-format types e.g. String
}
I have a class that has 2 properties and a constructor:
public class Card
{
public int CardName {get;set;}
public bool IsActive {get;set;}
public Card (int cardName, bool isActive)
{
CardName = cardName;
IsActive = isActive;
}
}
How do I force the developer to use the constructor instead of doing the following:
var card = new Card{ CardName = "blab", IsActive = true };
On a side note, what is the statement above called? Is that a lazy loading statement?
You already have.
By not having an empty constructor you've removed the ability to use the object initializer method of creating an object.
This:
var card = new Card{ CardName = "blab", IsActive = true };
is the same as this
var card = new Card() { CardName = "blab", IsActive = true };
And in this context new Card() is not valid.
That depends on why you want to prevent the syntax in question.
The object initializer syntax is shorthand for setting a bunch of properties immediately after construction. That is, this:
var c = new Card { CardName = "foo", IsActive = true };
Is semantically identical to this:
var c = new Card();
c.CardName = "foo";
c.IsActive = true;
In both cases, a constructor does run, but its immediately followed by a series of property initializers to apply to the new object.
In your case, since there is no parameterless constructor, you cannot use the object initializer syntax the way you posted. However, it is legal to pass constructor parameters along with the object initializer, so the following would be legal for your class:
var c = new Card("", false) { CardName = "foo", IsActive = true };
(One could argue that this syntax makes the meaning of values more clear than simply passing them to a constructor; one could also argue its just being excessively stubborn :) I could go either way)
You could prevent this second syntax from working by removing the public setters for those properties. If your goal is to prevent the user from changing the values passed into the constructor, making an immutable Card object, for example, that would be the way to go.
I should point out, though, that if one of my juniors asked me this question at work I'd really want to know why they found it necessary to prevent object initialization from being used. There are valid reasons, of course, but they are usually not the source of the question. Object initializers are a good thing -- there are cases where this syntax is very convenient (particularly with LINQ) and I use it all the time.
If you do some kind of setup in the constructor based on the initial values, but those properties are public-settable, you already have to deal with a case where the user changes those values after construction. If your goal is merely to ensure that some "setup" code happens when the object is first constructed, put that code into a default constructor and chain them together:
public class Card
{
public string CardName { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public Card()
{
// setup code here.
}
public Card ( string name, bool active )
: this()
{
this.CardName = name;
this.IsActive = active;
}
}
Declare the getters of the property as 'Private'.
Something like Public int CardName {private get; set;}.
I was just trying to code the following extension method:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace _4Testing
{
static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static void AssignMe(this int me, int value)
{
me = value;
}
}
}
But it is not working, i mean, can I use an extension method to alter values from extended classes? I don't want to change void return type to int, just changing extended class value. Thanks in advance
Your example uses int, which is a value type. Classes are reference types and behaves a bit differently in this case.
While you could make a method that takes another reference like AssignMe(this MyClass me, MyClass other), the method would work on a copy of the reference, so if you assign other to me it would only affect the local copy of the reference.
Also, keep in mind that extension methods are just static methods in disguise. I.e. they can only access public members of the extended types.
public sealed class Foo {
public int PublicValue;
private int PrivateValue;
}
public static class FooExtensions {
public static void Bar(this Foo f) {
f.PublicValue = 42;
// Doesn't compile as the extension method doesn't have access to Foo's internals
f.PrivateValue = 42;
}
}
// a work around for extension to a wrapping reference type is following ....
using System;
static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var me = new Integer { value = 5 };
int y = 2;
me.AssignMe(y);
Console.WriteLine(me); // prints 2
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void AssignMe(this Integer me, int value)
{
me.value = value;
}
}
class Integer
{
public int value { get; set; }
public Integer()
{
value = 0;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return value.ToString();
}
}
Ramon what you really need is a ref modifier on the first (i.e. int me ) parameter of the extension method, but C# does not allow ref modifier on parameters having 'this' modifiers.
[Update]
No workaround should be possible for your particular case of an extension method for a value type. Here is the "reductio ad absurdum" that you are asking for if you are allowed to do what you want to do; consider the C# statement:
5.AssignMe(10);
... now what on earth do you think its suppose to do ? Are you trying to assign 10 to 5 ??
Operator overloading cannot help you either.
This is an old post but I ran into a similar problem trying to implement an extender for the String class.
My original code was this:
public static void Revert(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
s = new string(xc.Reverse());
}
By using the new keyword I am creating a new object and since s is not passed by reference it will not be modified.
I changed it to the following which provides a solution to Ramon's problem:
public static string Reverse(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
Array.Reverse(xc);
return new string(xc);
}
In which case the calling code will be:
s = s.Reverse();
To manipulate integers you can do something like:
public static int Increment(this int i)
{
return i++;
}
i = i.Increment();