In C# 9, one can define a property with the same name in a record both in its primary constructor and in its body:
record Cat(int PawCount)
{
public int PawCount { get; init; }
}
This code compiles without errors.
When initializing an instance of such a record, the value provided to the constructor is completely ignored:
Console.WriteLine(new Cat(4));
Console.WriteLine(new Cat(4) { PawCount = 1 });
prints
Cat { PawCount = 0 }
Cat { PawCount = 1 }
Is this behavior correct or is it a bug?
If it’s correct, what are the cases in which it is useful?
I expected the compiler to either reject this code with an error like ‘The type Cat already contains a definition for PawCount’ or consider the property in the constructor and in the body the same, performing its initialization from the constructor.
The latter variant could be useful to provide the property with a custom getter and/or initializer without having to rewrite all the properties of the positional record in its body.
The actual behavior makes no sense to me.
The correct way to do this is:
record Cat(int PawCount)
{
public int PawCount { get; init; } = PawCount;
}
This is useful as it allows you to do e.g. validation
record Cat(int PawCount)
{
private int _pawCount;
public int PawCount {
get => _pawCount;
init => _pawCount = value < 0 ? throw new ArgumentException() : value;
} = PawCount;
}
The spec for this is here: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/csharp-9.0/records.md#members-of-a-record-type
Members are synthesized unless a member with a "matching" signature is declared in the record body or an accessible concrete non-virtual member with a "matching" signature is inherited. Two members are considered matching if they have the same signature or would be considered "hiding" in an inheritance scenario.
So since a property with the same name as the parameter already exists, the compiler wont synthesize a PawCount property, and so just silently ignores the parameter unless you use it yourself explicitly.
Related
I have this code:
public class NewFrame
{
public NewFrame(string iconSource = Const.Car,
string iconColor = Const.Red)
{
When I try and use it then it's telling me I am missing a default constructor. How can I add one of these and still make the code use the default values for iconBackgroundColor and IconSource? I thought that adding in those defaults with the = Const. would make it work but it seems like it doesn't think my constructor is a default (with no params).
You just have to add another empty overload and call the required constructor with defaults. See below:
public class NewFrame
{
public NewFrame() : this(Const.Car, Const.Red){
}
public NewFrame(string iconSource,
string iconColor)
{
...
}
}
By having two optional parameters, you don't actually create 4 different constructor declarations under the hood (one with both parameters, one with the first parameter, one with the second parameter, and one with neither). There is still only one constructor, with two parameters. It's just that C# recognises that the parameters are optional, and has syntactic sugar to let you omit them when you call the constructor.
However, if you use reflection to create an instance of your class (probably whatever the thing that requires a default constructor is doing), and you attempt to invoke the parameterless constructor, it won't find one, because there is no syntactic sugar in reflection.
Here is an example:
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Type t = typeof(MainClass);
object o = Activator.CreateInstance(t, 1);
Console.WriteLine(o);
}
public MainClass(int a = 10)
{
}
}
If you use typeof(MainClass).GetConstructors(), it will tell you that there is only one.
To actually declare a default constructor, you can do:
public class NewFrame
{
public NewFrame(string iconSource = Const.Car,
string iconColor = Const.Red)
{
...
}
public NewFrame() : this(Const.Car, Const.Red) { }
}
For what it's worth, when I do something like this, I take the route that #VyacheslavBenedichuk's answer is showing.
I'm not sure what your complaint is. This code compiles for me:
public class TestConstructor
{
public TestConstructor(string what = Const.Car, string color = Const.Red)
{
}
public static void Test()
{
var tc = new TestConstructor();
}
public class Const
{
public const string Car = "car";
public const string Red = "red";
}
}
What do your definitions of Const.Car and Const.Red look like? Where are you seeing the error?
But, if you use something that requires a default constructor, then this will not work. For example, this will fail at runtime:
var tc2 = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TestConstructor));
Please, when you are reporting an error, describe it exactly - in particular say whether it's a runtime or a compile-time error, the exact wording of the error, and the context in which the error occurs. In this case (the call to CreateInstance) will result in a System.MissingMethodException: 'No parameterless constructor defined for this object.'
In this case, you need to follow #VyacheslavBenedichuk's advice
I normally declare an optional parameter (default value) in the Constructor's parameters like this:
public class XV
{
public XV(int startPosition = 1) // Constructor
{
this.StartPosition = startPosition;
}
public int StartPosition { get; set; } // Property
}
But then I found myself looking at old code where I've written like this:
public class XV
{
public XV( ... ) { ... } // Constructor
public XV(int startPosition) // Constructor
{
this.StartPosition = startPosition;
}
public int StartPosition { get; set; } = 1; // Property
}
What is the use of adding = 1 to the Property compared to creating an optional value in the Constructor?
Is it just to support default values for Properties not present in the Constructor?
But if so, why not add them to the Constructor in that case?
With a optional argument (1st case), you can call the function without giving a value.
new XV(); would be a valid call to a function with a optional parameter. Even if you did not define a parameterless constructor. The constructor signature would match calls () and (int). Indeed, having the ability to match more calls with one signature is a big use case for Optional Arguments.
Note that optional parameters were not around all the time. They were only added back in C# 4.0. So old code might not use it, because it simply was not a thing back then. However for constructors, constructor chaining was often used to define de-facto default values.
In the 2nd case, only (int) calls would be valid. If you wanted to use the default value, you would have to retrieve it first. So it is hardly what I would call a "default value". "Reliable initialization" would be a better term. It is indeed useless and might be cut entirely by the compiler and JIT.
If you wanted a parameterless constructor, you would have to explicitly code one (classes start with a implicit parameterless one, but any explicit constructor disables that).
I'm trying to solve some simple study task, which includes writing an interpreter of some simple language with 4 methods - Set, Sum, Print, Remove; first 2 methods have 2 arguments - variable name and int value to set to variable or sum to its current value, and last 2 methods have only one argument - variable name
The method that I'm writing takes string , for example "set a 3" or "print a", and should work as interpreter of this string (do appropriate actions).
The obvious way is to use switch construction (switch by first word), but I've read that it's always better to use Dictionary instead of switch, so I've defined
Dictionary<string, Action<ActionArg>> methods
, where ActionArg is defined supertype with 2 inherited types:
abstract class ActionArg {}
class ActionArgVal : ActionArg { public string Val {get; set; } }
class ActionArgValVar : ActionArgVal { public int Var {get; set; } }
, and have defined 4 methods, for example,
void Set(ActionArgValVar) { ... }
But when I'm trying to write methods = new Dictionary<string, Action<ActionArg>> { {"set", Set}, ... }, there occurs an error, because Action<ActionArgValVar> couldn't be assigned to Action<ActionArg> because of contravariance of Action.
Is there any way to solve this using Dictionary or tasks like this are better to be solved by simple switch construction?
This seems like a simple question, but for some reason I can't find the answer anywhere. Basically, I'd like to be able to implement a constructor that takes NamedParameters.
By named parameters, I do not mean parameters with default values (optional parameters) such as:
public SomeMethod(){
string newBar = Foo(bar2 : "customBar2");
}
public string Foo(string bar1 = "bar1", bar2 = "bar2" ){
//...
}
A good example of what I'm trying to achieve is the AuthorizeAttribute from the System.Web.Mvc assembly. Which you can use the following way:
[Authorize(Roles = "Administrators", Users = "ThatCoolGuy")]
public ActionResult Admin(){
}
The constructor's signature in intellisense looks like the following example and I believe (please confirm) that those NamedParameters are mapping to class properties.
AuthorizeAttribute.AuthorizeAttribute(NamedParameters...)
Initiliaze new instance of the System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute class
Named parameters:
Order int
Users string
Roles string
Please note:
The syntax of defining the parameter name when calling a method has nothing to do with optional parameters:
You can use Foo(bar1 : "customBar1"); even if Foo is declared like this: void Foo(string bar1)
To answer the question:
My guess is that this is syntactic sugar similar to the object initializers introduced in Visual Studio 2010 and therefore you can't use this for your own classes.
The behaviour you are talking about is specific for attributes and cannot be reused in "normal" classes constructors.
You don't need to "implement" anything.
The parameters can be used in the manner you describe just by existing as parameters on the constructor.
You do need to be using C# 3.5 or above, when they were introduced.
Your example will compile and run on C# 4.0 / Visual Studio 2010 without modification.
See Named and Optional Arguments (C# Programming Guide) on MSDN.
In regards to properties on the object, that do not have a corresponding constructor arguments, the exact syntax is specific to attributes and can't be replicated, though, with object initializers you can get close.
You can use the builder/constructor info pattern together with property initializers.
class PersonInfo
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int? Age { get; set; }
public Color? FavoriteColor { get; set; }
public Person BuildPerson()
{
return new Person(this);
}
}
class Person
{
public Person(PersonInfo info)
{
// use info and handle optional/nullable parameters to initialize person
}
...
}
var p = new Person(new PersonInfo { Name = "Peter", Age = 15 });
// yet better
var p = new PersonInfo { Name = "Peter", Age = 15 }.BuildPerson();
I however don't understand, why you don't just use named parameters and provide null for indicating optional parameters.
class Person
{
public Person(string name = null, int? age = null, Color? favoriteColor = null) { /* ... */ }
}
var p = new Person(name: "Peter", age: 15);
Named parameters are NOT specific to attributes. It's a language syntax that can be used everywhere. It's fine to use properties for initialisers but you don't always want to have internals set as set properties.
Just instantiate you class using:
TheClass c = new Theclass(param3:firstValue, param1:secondValue, param2:secondValue);
With regards to this part of the question:
"I however don't understand, why you don't just use named parameters and provide null for indicating optional parameters."
The reason named parameters are nice is you don't need to provide extraneous values in parentheses, just what you want to specify, because if it's optional you shouldn't even need to put null. Furthermore, if you specify null, you are overriding any default value for that parameter which makes it optional. Being optional implies there's a default value meaning nothing passed in.
Property initialisation at instance time is purely there for convenience. Since C there has been the ability to initialise values at construction time on types. Which is handy if those values can't be specified in the constructor. I personally feel that the convenience of them has spoiled people and it get a little too liberal and make everything public get AND set. Just depends on the design and security of properties you need.
I doubt that's possible. This is something specific for attributes.
I think the closest option is to use an object initializer:
class Foo {
public string Name {get;set;}
public int Data {get;set;}
}
var foo = new Foo {Name = "MyName", Data = 12};
try to use this signature
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
before the name of your class
Please refer to MSDN specification for full description:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa664614(v=vs.71).aspx
"Each non-static public read-write field and property for an attribute class defines a named parameter for the attribute class".
Visual C# 2010 introduces named and optional arguments. Named argument able you to specify an argument for a particular parameter by associating the argument with the parameter's name rather than with the parameter's position in the parameter list.Named arguments free you from the need to remember or to look up the order of parameters in the parameter lists of called methods.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
mapingFunction(snum2: "www.stackoverflow.com", num1: 1);
}
public static void mapingFunction(int num1, string snum2)
{
Console.WriteLine(num1 + " and " + snum2);
}
here you can see that argument are passed with our their order
What you probably want to do is implement public properties in your attribute:
public class AuditFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public string Message { get; set; }
public AuditFilterAttribute() { }
}
They can be accessed through Named Parameters where you apply it:
[AuditFilter(Message = "Deleting user")]
public ActionResult DeleteUser(int userId)
Hope that helps...
Today, I was cleaning up some of my code with FXCop and it complained about a Attribute class I had with this violation.
CA1019: Define accessor for attribute argument.
On this page, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182136.aspx there is more information, but I still do not get the reason for this as it seems to me more verbose and less relevant.
It gives two codes samples.
using System;
namespace DesignLibrary
{
// Violates rule: DefineAccessorsForAttributeArguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class BadCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
// Missing the property that corresponds to
// the someStringData parameter.
public BadCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
}
// Satisfies rule: Attributes should have accessors for all arguments.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public sealed class GoodCustomAttribute :Attribute
{
string data;
public GoodCustomAttribute(string someStringData)
{
data = someStringData;
}
//The constructor parameter and property
//name are the same except for case.
public string SomeStringData
{
get
{
return data;
}
}
}
}
I don't understand why the SomeStringData property is required. Isn't the someStringData a parameter? Why does it need to have its own property if it is already stored in another property?
Actually, mine is a little different as it looks like this.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.Path = attributeValue;
}
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
// Add to add this to stop the CA1019 moaning but I find it useless and stupid?
public string AttributeValue
{
get
{
return this.Name;
}
}
}
Rather than a private field, I have used a public autoproperty, I had to add the last part to make the warning stop but I don't see the point and it also adds another public field to this class, which is redundant, and seems less clean.
That said, I assume that this warning is raised for a reason so what good reason I am missing here?
Thanks in advance.
FxCop is complaining because your existing property doesn't match the parameter name.
Therefore, it doesn't realize that the parameter actually is exposed.
You should rename the property or parameter to match (except for case), or suppress the warning.
FxCop rule CA1019 is just enforcing the .Net Framework coding guidelines for Attributes.
Use named arguments (read/write properties) for optional parameters. Provide a read/write property with the same name as each named argument, but change the case to differentiate between them.
Documentation Link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2ab31zeh(v=vs.71).aspx
The reason behind the FxCop warning is that every piece of data you pass into the attribute's constructor should be made publicly available to access when the attribute instance is being retrieved by Reflection.
Let's say you have this:
[BadCustom("My String Data")]
public class DecoratedClass
{
}
How will you get "My String Data" back from that attribute instance when you read it using:
BadCustomAttribute attr = typeof(DecoratedClass)
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(BadCustomAttribute), false)
.Single() as BadCustomAttribute;
Now you have the instance of your attribute, but no way to read the string passed into the constructor because you didn't at least declare a read-only property for it.
the idea is that you should write just:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public sealed class ExampleAttribute : Attribute
{
public ExampleAttribute(string attributeValue)
{
this.AttributeValue = attributeValue;
}
public string AttributeValue
{
get;
set;
}
}
This violation will also be thrown when the parameter name matches the property name, but the data types are different.