This question already has answers here:
Accessing object property as string and setting its value
(11 answers)
Closed 11 months ago.
Is it possible to make a dictionary that points to getters & setters?
For example:
public class test
{
public Dictionary<string, int> pointer = new Dictionary<string,int>()
{
{ "a", a }
}; // the goal is to do pointer["a"] = someInt or print(pointer[a])
public int a { get { return b;} set { b = 2; } }
public int b;
}
Odds are you are not actually trying to put getters and setters in a dictionary, and that you are trying to access properties by their names. This is easily possible through Reflection. If that is what your question is about you should mark this as duplicate and close the question.
But, the answer to your actual question is yes. It is possible to make a dictionary that points to getters and setters. You will need to use some lambda programming. Here is one way to do it:
public class test
{
public Dictionary<string, GetSet<int>> pointer;
public test()
{
pointer = new Dictionary<string, GetSet<int>>()
{
{ "a", new(()=>a,i=>a = i) }
};
}
public int a { get { return b; } set { b = 2; } }
public int b;
}
public class GetSet<T>
{
private readonly Func<T> _get;
private readonly Action<T> _set;
public GetSet(Func<T> get, Action<T> set)
{
_get = get;
_set = set;
}
public T Get() => _get();
public void Set(T value) => _set(value);
}
Usage:
var test = new test();
var property = test.pointer["a"];
var value = property.Get();//returns the value of test.a
property.Set(3);//sets test.a to 3
Related
I want to index class properties like an array.
Public class Foo
{
propery p1{get;set;}
propery p3{get;set;}
propery p3{get;set;}
.
.
.
.
}
I wan to index every propery like an array
FOO.p1=Value
Foo[0]=Value(index 0 refers to p1)
I don't know much about the database, where there might have been a ready-made solution. But at least you can do it by reflection in this way:
using System.Reflection;
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, Inherited = true, AllowMultiple = false)]
public sealed class IndexedPropertyAttribute : Attribute
{
readonly int index;
public IndexedPropertyAttribute(int index)
{
this.index = index;
}
public int Index
{
get { return index; }
}
}
public abstract class WithIndexedProperties
{
private Lazy<IReadOnlyDictionary<int, PropertyInfo>> properties;
protected WithIndexedProperties()
{
properties = new Lazy<IReadOnlyDictionary<int, PropertyInfo>>(
() => {
var linq = from prop in this.GetType().GetProperties()
let attr = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(IndexedPropertyAttribute), true)
where attr.Length is 1
select (((IndexedPropertyAttribute)attr[0]).Index, prop);
return linq.ToDictionary(p => p.Index, p => p.prop);
});
}
public object? this[int propertyIndex]
{
get
{
return properties.Value[propertyIndex].GetValue(this);
}
set
{
properties.Value[propertyIndex].SetValue(this, value);
}
}
}
And there is an example:
Clss obj = new Clss();
obj[0] = "ABC";
obj[2] = 222;
obj[4] = 444;
// Here obj.A will be "ABC", obj.B will be 444 and obj.C will be 222.
public class Clss : WithIndexedProperties
{
[IndexedProperty(0)]
public string? A { get; init; }
[IndexedProperty(4)]
public int B { get; init; }
[IndexedProperty(2)]
public int C { get; init; }
}
I think you need to do something like this. The code below is very generalized solution to your question and I might need some customization for yourself
using System.Reflection;
public class ReflectionBasedIndexedType
{
public int A1 { get; set; } = 10;
public int A2 { get; set; } = 20;
public string SomeString => "Hello There";
private readonly Dictionary<string, object> _underlyingCollection;
public object this[string name] => _underlyingCollection[name];
public ReflectionBasedIndexedType()
{
_underlyingCollection = GetUnderlyingCollection();
}
private Dictionary<string, object> GetUnderlyingCollection()
{
Dictionary<string, object> container = new();
// get the properties defined in the class, I am filtering
// with constraint that, I want get only public and class level
// Properties, which means I won't get any private/protected or
// static properties if there is defined such in the class
// also where filters out indexer property, which we have defined
// inside this class, without this line, there will be exception
IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> properties = GetType()
.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
.Where(x => x.GetIndexParameters().Length == 0);
foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
container.Add(property.Name, property.GetValue(this)!);
}
return container;
}
}
and than use case will be like this
ReflectionBasedIndexedType rbit = new();
var a1 = rbit[nameof(rbit.A1)];
var a2 = rbit[nameof(rbit.A2)];
var str = rbit[nameof(rbit.SomeString)];
Console.WriteLine(a1);
Console.WriteLine(a2);
Console.WriteLine(str);
and output in the console will be this
10
20
Hello There
I think you have two ways at least.
The first one, is #Swapper mentioned, yo can use reflection. In this way, the class is normal and you have to write your hug code in where you want to use that class.
The second way is easier but a little fuzy. You can use dynamic type. If you know how to use it, that's ok. Otherwise please let me know, then I will create a sample code for you.
I have two constructors which feed values to readonly fields.
public class Sample
{
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
_intField = i;
}
public Sample(int theInt) => _intField = theInt;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
One constructor receives the values directly, and the other does some calculation and obtains the values, then sets the fields.
Now here's the catch:
I don't want to duplicate the
setting code. In this case, just one
field is set but of course there may
well be more than one.
To make the fields readonly, I need
to set them from the constructor, so
I can't "extract" the shared code to
a utility function.
I don't know how to call one
constructor from another.
Any ideas?
Like this:
public Sample(string str) : this(int.Parse(str)) { }
If what you want can't be achieved satisfactorily without having the initialization in its own method (e.g. because you want to do too much before the initialization code, or wrap it in a try-finally, or whatever) you can have any or all constructors pass the readonly variables by reference to an initialization routine, which will then be able to manipulate them at will.
public class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue) => intField = newValue;
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt) => setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
Before the body of the constructor, use either:
: base (parameters)
: this (parameters)
Example:
public class People: User
{
public People (int EmpID) : base (EmpID)
{
// Add more statements here.
}
}
I am improving upon supercat's answer. I guess the following can also be done:
class Sample
{
private readonly int _intField;
public int IntProperty
{
get { return _intField; }
}
void setupStuff(ref int intField, int newValue)
{
//Do some stuff here based upon the necessary initialized variables.
intField = newValue;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString, bool? doStuff = true)
{
//Initialization of some necessary variables.
//==========================================
int i = int.Parse(theIntAsString);
// ................
// .......................
//==========================================
if (!doStuff.HasValue || doStuff.Value == true)
setupStuff(ref _intField,i);
}
public Sample(int theInt): this(theInt, false) //"false" param to avoid setupStuff() being called two times
{
setupStuff(ref _intField, theInt);
}
}
Here is an example that calls another constructor, then checks on the property it has set.
public SomeClass(int i)
{
I = i;
}
public SomeClass(SomeOtherClass soc)
: this(soc.J)
{
if (I==0)
{
I = DoSomethingHere();
}
}
Yeah, you can call other method before of the call base or this!
public class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException(int number) : base(ConvertToString(number))
{
}
private static string ConvertToString(int number)
{
return number.toString()
}
}
Constructor chaining i.e you can use "Base" for Is a relationship and "This" you can use for same class, when you want call multiple Constructor in single call.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass():this(10)
{
}
public BaseClass(int val)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new BaseClass();
ReadLine();
}
}
When you inherit a class from a base class, you can invoke the base class constructor by instantiating the derived class
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
}
class der : sample
{
public int a;
public int b;
public der(int value1,int value2) : base(50)
{
a = value1;
b = value2;
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
der obj = new der(10,20);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.x);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.a);
System.Console.WriteLine(obj.b);
}
}
Output of the sample program is
50 10 20
You can also use this keyword to invoke a constructor from another constructor
class sample
{
public int x;
public sample(int value)
{
x = value;
}
public sample(sample obj) : this(obj.x)
{
}
}
class run
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
sample s = new sample(20);
sample ss = new sample(s);
System.Console.WriteLine(ss.x);
}
}
The output of this sample program is
20
Error handling and making your code reusable is key. I added string to int validation and it is possible to add other types if needed. Solving this problem with a more reusable solution could be this:
public class Sample
{
public Sample(object inputToInt)
{
_intField = objectToInt(inputToInt);
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
public static int objectToInt(object inputToInt)
{
switch (inputToInt)
{
case int inputInt:
return inputInt;
break;
case string inputString:
if (!int.TryParse(inputString, out int parsedInt))
{
throw new InvalidParameterException($"The input {inputString} could not be parsed to int");
}
return parsedInt;
default:
throw new InvalidParameterException($"Constructor do not support {inputToInt.GetType().Name}");
break;
}
}
Please, please, and pretty please do not try this at home, or work, or anywhere really.
This is a way solve to a very very specific problem, and I hope you will not have that.
I'm posting this since it is technically an answer, and another perspective to look at it.
I repeat, do not use it under any condition. Code is to run with LINQPad.
void Main()
{
(new A(1)).Dump();
(new B(2, -1)).Dump();
var b2 = new B(2, -1);
b2.Increment();
b2.Dump();
}
class A
{
public readonly int I = 0;
public A(int i)
{
I = i;
}
}
class B: A
{
public int J;
public B(int i, int j): base(i)
{
J = j;
}
public B(int i, bool wtf): base(i)
{
}
public void Increment()
{
int i = I + 1;
var t = typeof(B).BaseType;
var ctor = t.GetConstructors().First();
ctor.Invoke(this, new object[] { i });
}
}
Since constructor is a method, you can call it with reflection. Now you either think with portals, or visualize a picture of a can of worms. sorry about this.
In my case, I had a main constructor that used an OracleDataReader as an argument, but I wanted to use different query to create the instance:
I had this code:
public Subscriber(OracleDataReader contractReader)
{
this.contract = Convert.ToString(contractReader["contract"]);
this.customerGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerGroup"]);
this.subGroup = Convert.ToString(contractReader["customerSubGroup"]);
this.pricingPlan= Convert.ToString(contractReader["pricingPlan"]);
this.items = new Dictionary<string, Member>();
this.status = 0;
}
So I created the following constructor:
public Subscriber(string contract, string customerGroup) : this(getSubReader(contract, customerGroup))
{ }
and this method:
private static OracleDataReader getSubReader(string contract, string customerGroup)
{
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":contract"].Value = contract + "%";
cmdSubscriber.Parameters[":customerGroup"].Value = customerGroup+ "%";
return cmdSubscriber.ExecuteReader();
}
notes: a statically defined cmdSubscriber is defined elsewhere in the code; My main constructor has been simplified for this illustration.
In case you need to run something before calling another constructor not after.
public class Sample
{
static int preprocess(string theIntAsString)
{
return preprocess(int.Parse(theIntAsString));
}
static int preprocess(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
return theIntNeedRounding/100;
}
public Sample(string theIntAsString)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntAsString)
}
public Sample(int theIntNeedRounding)
{
_intField = preprocess(theIntNeedRounding)
}
public int IntProperty => _intField;
private readonly int _intField;
}
And ValueTuple can be very helpful if you need to set more than one field.
NOTE: most of the solutions above does not work for structs.
Unfortunately initializing struct fields in a method called by a constructor is not recognized by the compiler and will lead to 2 errors:
in the constructor: Field xxxx must be fully assigned...
in the method, if you have readonly fields: a read-only field cannot be assigned except in a constructor.
These can be really frustrating for example when you just need to do simple check to decide on which constructor to orient your call to.
Setup:
public class Data
{
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
}
public class Runner
{
public static void Run(Data data)
{
data.A = data.B;
data.A = 1;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var data = new Data() { A = 1, B = 2 };
Runner.Run(data);
}
}
Problem: I need to implement change tracking here for property names not values. Inside Runner.Run on the first line data.A = data.B I need to record somehow that "A" was set to "B" (literally property names) and then on the next line data.A = 1 I need to record that "A" was set to constant and say forget about it.
Constrains:
When setting one property to another (e.g. A = B) that needs to be recorded
When setting property to anything else (e.g. A = 1 or A = B * 2) this change needs to be forgotten (e.g. remember A only)
Suppose this is the tracker contract being used:
void RecordChange(string setterName, string getterName);
void UnTrackChange(string setterName);
Question:
I would like to somehow proxy the Data class so it still can be used in the interface code (e.g. Runner - is a whole bunch of a business logic code that uses Data) INCLUDING strong-typing and it can track it's changes without modifying the code (e.g. there is lots of places like 'data.A = data.B').
Is there any way to do it without resorting to I guess some magic involving IL generation?
Already investigated/tried:
PostSharp interceptors/Castle.DynamicProxy with interceptors - these alone cannot help. The most I can get out of it is to have a value of data.B inside setter interceptor but not nameof(data.B).
Compiler services - haven't found anything suitable here - getting the name of caller doesn't really help.
Runtine code generation - smth like proxy inherited from DynamicObject or using Relfection.Emit (TypeBuilder probably) - I lose typings.
Current solution:
Use the Tracker implementation of the abovementioned contract and pass it around into every function down the road. Then instead of writing data.A = data.B use method tracker.SetFrom(x => x.A, x => x.B) - tracker holds a Data instance and so this works. BUT in a real codebase it is easy to miss something and it just makes it way less readable.
It is the closest the solution I've come up with. It isn't perfect as I still need to modify all the contracts/methods in the client code to use a new data model but at least all the logic stays the same.
So I'm open for other answers.
Here's the renewed Data model:
public readonly struct NamedProperty<TValue>
{
public NamedProperty(string name, TValue value)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public string Name { get; }
public TValue Value { get; }
public static implicit operator TValue (NamedProperty<TValue> obj)
=> obj.Value;
public static implicit operator NamedProperty<TValue>(TValue value)
=> new NamedProperty<TValue>(null, value);
}
public interface ISelfTracker<T>
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
Tracker<T> Tracker { get; set; }
}
public class NamedData : ISelfTracker<NamedData>
{
public virtual NamedProperty<int> A { get; set; }
public virtual NamedProperty<int> B { get; set; }
public Tracker<NamedData> Tracker { get; set; }
}
Basically I've copy-pasted the original Data model but changed all its properties to be aware of their names.
Then the tracker itself:
public class Tracker<T>
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
public T Instance { get; }
public T Proxy { get; }
public Tracker(T instance)
{
Instance = instance;
Proxy = new ProxyGenerator().CreateClassProxyWithTarget<T>(Instance, new TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor<T>(this));
Proxy.Tracker = this;
}
public void RecordChange(string setterName, string getterName)
{
}
public void UnTrackChange(string setterName)
{
}
}
The interceptor for Castle.DynamicProxy:
public class TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor<T> : IInterceptor
where T : class, ISelfTracker<T>
{
private const string SetterPrefix = "set_";
private const string GetterPrefix = "get_";
private readonly Tracker<T> _tracker;
public TrackingNamedProxyInterceptor(Tracker<T> proxy)
{
_tracker = proxy;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (IsSetMethod(invocation.Method))
{
string propertyName = GetPropertyName(invocation.Method);
dynamic value = invocation.Arguments[0];
var propertyType = value.GetType();
if (IsOfGenericType(propertyType, typeof(NamedProperty<>)))
{
if (value.Name == null)
{
_tracker.UnTrackChange(propertyName);
}
else
{
_tracker.RecordChange(propertyName, value.Name);
}
var args = new[] { propertyName, value.Value };
invocation.Arguments[0] = Activator.CreateInstance(propertyType, args);
}
}
invocation.Proceed();
}
private string GetPropertyName(MethodInfo method)
=> method.Name.Replace(SetterPrefix, string.Empty).Replace(GetterPrefix, string.Empty);
private bool IsSetMethod(MethodInfo method)
=> method.IsSpecialName && method.Name.StartsWith(SetterPrefix);
private bool IsOfGenericType(Type type, Type openGenericType)
=> type.IsGenericType && type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == openGenericType;
}
And the modified entry point:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var data = new Data() { A = 1, B = 2 };
NamedData namedData = Map(data);
var proxy = new Tracker<NamedData>(namedData).Proxy;
Runner.Run(proxy);
Console.ReadLine();
}
The Map() function actually maps Data to NamedData filling in property names.
My Code:
public class A
{
public virtual void displayDetailInfo()
{
}
}
public class B : A
{
public String _a;
public int _n;
public B() { }
public B(String _a, int _n)
{
this._a = _a;
this._n = _n;
}
public String A
{
get { return _a; }
set { this._a = value; }
}
public int N
{
get { return _n; }
set { this._n = value; }
}
public override void displayDetailInfo()
{
Console.WriteLine(A);//To obtain value entered in Main(i.e. f.A)
Console.WriteLine(N);//To obtain value entered in Main(i.e. f.N)
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
A v = new A();
A v1 = new B();
B f = new B();
f.A = Console.ReadLine(); //Value to be accessed
f.N = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()); //Value to be accessed
v1.displayDetailInfo();
}
}
How can I get the value(f.A and f.N) I entered in Main accessed from the overrided method in class B(i.e. displayDetailInfo()). The code I wrote doesn't obtains any value(i.e. Console.WriteLine(A) gives no value of f.A). So how can I get the value of f.A and f.N from overrided displayDetailInfo()?
Whenever you use new to create a new object, you are creating a new, independent object that has its own state.
Here, you are creating 3 separate objects - v, v1, f.
A v = new Vehicle();
A v1 = new B();
B f = new B();
Changing a property of one of these objects does not affect the properties of the other two objects whatsoever.
Here you change the properties of f, but the properties of v1 is not affected.
f.A = Console.ReadLine();
f.N = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
This is why when you call v1.displayDetailInfo(), it prints null and 0. null and 0 are the default values of string and int respectively. v1's properties have not been set yet, so they hold the default values.
To fix this, just call f.displayDetailInfo() instead.
You can't do this because you v1 is a different instance of B than the one you want to get the values from (f)
Calling f.displayDetailInfo() should give you the result you want
You are setting A of a different object than what you are calling displayDetailInfo on.
I think you meant to do this:
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
A v = new Vehicle();
B v1 = new B();
v1.A = Console.ReadLine(); //Value to be accessed
v1.N = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()); //Value to be accessed
v1.displayDetailInfo();
}
It's not possible for v1 to have data you entered in f. The class is just a blueprint, v1 and f are different instances that exist in different parts of the heap.
v1.A is not the same as f.A and v1.N is not the same as f.N
To see the values you entered, you better call:
f.displayDetailInfo()
Also, you're using properties wrong. If you want to use backing fields, the ones with the underscores (_n and _a), you better make them private. And unless you want to have additional logic to the getters or setters you are better off not using backing fields altogether and use auto implemented properties:
public string A { get; set; }
public string N { get; set; }
I have a few classes which have some primitive fields and I would like to create a generalized wrapper for them in order to access their fields. This wrapper should somehow contain a reference to the fields of my classes so that I can read/write the values of these fields. The idea is to create a genralized architecture for these classes so that I dont have to write code for each of them. The classes have fields which have a number in them which will be used as an Id to access the fields.
This is some example code that might shed some light on my requirement. What I want in the end is to change the value of some field in the object of Fancy1 class without accessing the object itself but through its wrapper.
class Fancy1
{
public double level1;
public bool isEnable1;
public double level2;
public bool isEnable2;
public double level3;
}
class Fancy2
{
public double level4;
public bool isEnable4;
public double level6;
public bool isEnable6;
public double level7;
}
class FieldWrapper
{
public int id { get; set; }
public object level { get; set; }
public object isEnabled { get; set; }
public FieldWrapper(int id, object level, object isEnabled)
{
this.id = id;
this.level = level;
this.isEnabled = isEnabled;
}
}
class FancyWrapper
{
private Fancy scn;
public FancyWrapper(Fancy scn)
{
if (!(scn is Fancy))
throw new ArgumentException(scn.GetType().FullName + " is not a supported type!");
this.scn = scn;
}
private Dictionary<int, FieldWrapper> fieldLut = new Dictionary<int, FieldWrapper>();
private List<FieldWrapper> _fields { get { return fieldLut.Values.ToList(); } }
public List<FieldWrapper> fields
{
get
{
if (_fields.Count == 0)
{
foreach (System.Reflection.FieldInfo fieldInfo in scn.GetType().GetFields())
{
if (fieldInfo.FieldType == typeof(double))
{
int satId = getIdNr(fieldInfo.Name);
fieldLut.Add(satId, new FieldWrapper(satId, fieldInfo.GetValue(scn), true));
}
}
foreach (System.Reflection.FieldInfo fieldInfo in scn.GetType().GetFields())
{
if (fieldInfo.FieldType == typeof(bool))
{
int satId = getIdNr(fieldInfo.Name);
fieldLut[satId].isEnabled = fieldInfo.GetValue(scn);
}
}
}
return _fields;
}
}
private int getIdNr(string name)
{
System.Text.RegularExpressions.Match m = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Match(name, #"\d+");
return Int32.Parse(m.Value);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Fancy1 fancy = new Fancy1();
fancy.level1 = 1;
fancy.isEnable1 = true;
fancy.level2 = 2;
fancy.isEnable2 = false;
fancy.level3 = 3;
FancyWrapper wrapper = new FancyWrapper(fancy);
wrapper.fields[2].level = 10;
// fancy.level2 should somehow get the value I set via the wrapper
Console.WriteLine(fancy.level2);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
EDIT: Fancy classes cannot be changed since they are part of an interface!
Depending on how many Fancy classes you are dealing with, you could create an adapter/facade class for each the expose a common interface. eg:
class Fancy1
{
public double level1;
public bool isEnable1;
public double level2;
public bool isEnable2;
public double level3;
}
public class FieldWrapper
{
private Action<double> _levelSetter;
private Func<double> _levelGetter;
private Action<bool> _enableSetter;
private Func<bool> _enableGetter;
public double level { get { return _levelGetter(); } set { _levelSetter(value); }}
public bool isEnabled { get { return _enableGetter(); } set { _enableSetter(value); }}
internal FieldWrapper(Func<double> levelGetter, Action<double> levelSetter, Func<bool> enableGetter, Action<bool> enableSetter)
{
_levelGetter = levelGetter;
_levelSetter = levelSetter;
_enableGetter = enableGetter;
_enableSetter = enableSetter;
}
}
abstract class FancyWrapper
{
public FieldWrapper[] Fields { get; protected set; }
}
class Fancy1Wrapper : FancyWrapper
{
private Fancy1 _fancy1;
public Fancy1Wrapper(Fancy1 fancy1)
{
_fancy1 = fancy1;
this.Fields = new[] { new FieldWrapper(() => fancy1.level1, level => _fancy1.level1 = level, () => _fancy1.isEnable1, enable => _fancy1.isEnable1 = enable),
new FieldWrapper(() => fancy1.level2, level => _fancy1.level2 = level, () => _fancy1.isEnable2, enable => _fancy1.isEnable2 = enable), };
}
}
Or you could invest 5 minutes learning data structures. Consider following example:
var levels = new Dictionary<int, bool>
{
{1, true},
{2, false}
};
if (levels[1])
{
//will run, because level 1 is true
}
if (levels[2])
{
//will not run, because level 2 is false
}
if (levels.ContainsKey(3) && levels[3])
{
//will not run, because dictionary does not contain entry for key 3
}
levels.Add(3, false);
if (levels.ContainsKey(3) && levels[3])
{
//will not run, because level 3 is false
}
levels[3] = true;
if (levels.ContainsKey(3) && levels[3])
{
//will run, because level 3 is true
}
That may seem like what you want, but it really isn't. It is extremely awkward on any number of levels. More specifically, pointers are generally rather "Un-C#-like" and having to know about these numbers defeats the point of having separate classes to begin with.
Think closely about what you want to accomplish. If you're having problems translating it into code, we're here to help. :)