We Keep Coding

C# - unsafe swap of a dictionary value by pointers

I have two sets of dictionaries that each contain the same keys and have initialized values.
Using unsafe code, I would like to swap their addresses:
Dictionary<string, List<object>> d1 = ...
Dictionary<string, List<object>> d2 = ...
unsafe void SwapEntries(string index)
{
int* tmp = &d1[index];
&d1[index] = &d2[index]
&d2[index] = tmp;
}
Assuming I've recalled my pointer arithmetic properly, the output I'm looking for would be this:
d1 = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>() { "a", { 1, 2, 3 } };
d2 = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>() { "a", { 4, 5, 6 } };
SwapEntries("a");
Console.WriteLine(d1["a"]); //4,5,6
Console.WriteLine(d2["a"]); //1,2,3
However, when I try to write this, I get the compile error "Cannot take the address of the given expression."
1) Is there a faster way of performing the address swap that I've missed? Performance is the only priority here.
2) Is my pointer arithmetic correct?
3) Do I need to move to a wrapper or a different data structure entirely in order to be able to perform the address swap as described?

I agree with Martin Ullrich's answer.
The expression d1[index] is not a variable. It is an invocation of the get accessor of the indexer defined by Dictionary<,>. You cannot take a pointer to that with the & operator.
Besides, in this case, the type of it is List<object>. You can only take pointers to value types, and List<> is a class type.
Even if you did have the true storage location, and it was of type object[], it would still be impossible since the element type of the array is object. So arr[0] (corresponding to d1[index][0]) would be a class type again, and you cannot take the address of that.
Scott Chamberlain's comment to your question gives an easy approach. Just use
void SwapEntries(string index)
{
var tmp = d1[index];
d1[index] = d2[index];
d2[index] = tmp;
}
This just involves passing around references to the two existing List<object> instances in question.

Automatic pointers to dictionary members aren't supported - they only work for Arrays or data types that use C# 7's "ref return" feature for indexers, properties or methods.

If you wanted to actually take the ref addresses of the two locations, there is now an option for it
CollectionsMarshal.GetValueRefOrNullRef(d1, "a")
So if you had a Swap function which accepted pointers:
void Swap<T>(ref T a, ref T b)
{
var tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
You could call it like this
Swap(ref CollectionsMarshal.GetValueRefOrNullRef(d1, "x"),
ref CollectionsMarshal.GetValueRefOrNullRef(d2, "x"));
shaplab
The benefit of this over just using normal dictionary indexers is that you only look up each location once, rather than once for get and once for set.

What's the difference between System.ValueTuple and System.Tuple?

I decompiled some C# 7 libraries and saw ValueTuple generics being used. What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.tuple
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.valuetuple

What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
A ValueTuple is a struct which reflects a tuple, same as the original System.Tuple class.
The main difference between Tuple and ValueTuple are:
System.ValueTuple is a value type (struct), while System.Tuple is a reference type (class). This is meaningful when talking about allocations and GC pressure.
System.ValueTuple isn't only a struct, it's a mutable one, and one has to be careful when using them as such. Think what happens when a class holds a System.ValueTuple as a field.
System.ValueTuple exposes its items via fields instead of properties.
Until C# 7, using tuples wasn't very convenient. Their field names are Item1, Item2, etc, and the language hadn't supplied syntax sugar for them like most other languages do (Python, Scala).
When the .NET language design team decided to incorporate tuples and add syntax sugar to them at the language level an important factor was performance. With ValueTuple being a value type, you can avoid GC pressure when using them because (as an implementation detail) they'll be allocated on the stack.
Additionally, a struct gets automatic (shallow) equality semantics by the runtime, where a class doesn't. Although the design team made sure there will be an even more optimized equality for tuples, hence implemented a custom equality for it.
Here is a paragraph from the design notes of Tuples:
Struct or Class:
As mentioned, I propose to make tuple types structs rather than
classes, so that no allocation penalty is associated with them. They
should be as lightweight as possible.
Arguably, structs can end up being more costly, because assignment
copies a bigger value. So if they are assigned a lot more than they
are created, then structs would be a bad choice.
In their very motivation, though, tuples are ephemeral. You would use
them when the parts are more important than the whole. So the common
pattern would be to construct, return and immediately deconstruct
them. In this situation structs are clearly preferable.
Structs also have a number of other benefits, which will become
obvious in the following.
Examples:
You can easily see that working with System.Tuple becomes ambiguous very quickly. For example, say we have a method which calculates a sum and a count of a List<Int>:
public Tuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var sum = 0;
var count = 0;
foreach (var value in values) { sum += value; count++; }
return new Tuple(sum, count);
}
On the receiving end, we end up with:
Tuple<int, int> result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
// What is Item1 and what is Item2?
// Which one is the sum and which is the count?
Console.WriteLine(result.Item1);
Console.WriteLine(result.Item2);
The way you can deconstruct value tuples into named arguments is the real power of the feature:
public (int sum, int count) DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var res = (sum: 0, count: 0);
foreach (var value in values) { res.sum += value; res.count++; }
return res;
}
And on the receiving end:
var result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {result.sum}, Count: {result.count}");
Or:
var (sum, count) = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {sum}, Count: {count}");
Compiler goodies:
If we look under the cover of our previous example, we can see exactly how the compiler is interpreting ValueTuple when we ask it to deconstruct:
[return: TupleElementNames(new string[] {
"sum",
"count"
})]
public ValueTuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
ValueTuple<int, int> result;
result..ctor(0, 0);
foreach (int current in values)
{
result.Item1 += current;
result.Item2++;
}
return result;
}
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> expr_0E = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
int item = expr_0E.Item1;
int arg_1A_0 = expr_0E.Item2;
}
Internally, the compiled code utilizes Item1 and Item2, but all of this is abstracted away from us since we work with a decomposed tuple. A tuple with named arguments gets annotated with the TupleElementNamesAttribute. If we use a single fresh variable instead of decomposing, we get:
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> valueTuple = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Sum: {0}, Count: {1})", valueTuple.Item1, valueTuple.Item2));
}
Note that the compiler still has to make some magic happen (via the attribute) when we debug our application, as it would be odd to see Item1, Item2.

The difference between Tuple and ValueTuple is that Tuple is a reference type and ValueTuple is a value type. The latter is desirable because changes to the language in C# 7 have tuples being used much more frequently, but allocating a new object on the heap for every tuple is a performance concern, particularly when it's unnecessary.
However, in C# 7, the idea is that you never have to explicitly use either type because of the syntax sugar being added for tuple use. For example, in C# 6, if you wanted to use a tuple to return a value, you would have to do the following:
public Tuple<string, int> GetValues()
{
// ...
return new Tuple(stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
However, in C# 7, you can use this:
public (string, int) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
You can even go a step further and give the values names:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.S;
... Or deconstruct the tuple entirely:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var (S, I) = GetValues();
string s = S;
Tuples weren't often used in C# pre-7 because they were cumbersome and verbose, and only really used in cases where building a data class/struct for just a single instance of work would be more trouble than it was worth. But in C# 7, tuples have language-level support now, so using them is much cleaner and more useful.

I looked at the source for both Tuple and ValueTuple. The difference is that Tuple is a class and ValueTuple is a struct that implements IEquatable.
That means that Tuple == Tuple will return false if they are not the same instance, but ValueTuple == ValueTuple will return true if they are of the same type and Equals returns true for each of the values they contain.

In addition to the comments above, one unfortunate gotcha of ValueTuple is that, as a value type, the named arguments get erased when compiled to IL, so they're not available for serialisation at runtime.
i.e. Your sweet named arguments will still end up as "Item1", "Item2", etc. when serialised via e.g. Json.NET.

Other answers forgot to mention important points.Instead of rephrasing, I'm gonna reference the XML documentation from source code:
The ValueTuple types (from arity 0 to 8) comprise the runtime implementation that underlies
tuples in C# and struct tuples in F#.
Aside from created via language syntax, they are most easily created via the
ValueTuple.Create factory methods.
The System.ValueTuple types differ from the System.Tuple types in that:
they are structs rather than classes,
they are mutable rather than readonly, and
their members (such as Item1, Item2, etc) are fields rather than properties.
With introduction of this type and C# 7.0 compiler, you can easily write
(int, string) idAndName = (1, "John");
And return two values from a method:
private (int, string) GetIdAndName()
{
//.....
return (id, name);
}
Contrary to System.Tuple you can update its members (Mutable) because they are public read-write Fields that can be given meaningful names:
(int id, string name) idAndName = (1, "John");
idAndName.name = "New Name";

Late-joining to add a quick clarification on these two factoids:
they are structs rather than classes
they are mutable rather than readonly
One would think that changing value-tuples en-masse would be straightforward:
foreach (var x in listOfValueTuples) { x.Foo = 103; } // wont even compile because x is a value (struct) not a variable
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo;
Someone might try to workaround this like so:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples.Select(x => x.Foo = 103);
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' should be 103 right? wrong! it is '10'
The reason for this quirky behavior is that the value-tuples are exactly value-based (structs) and thus the .Select(...) call works on cloned-structs rather than on the originals. To resolve this we must resort to:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples = listOfValueTuples
.Select(x => {
x.Foo = 103;
return x;
})
.ToList();
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Alternatively of course one might try the straightforward approach:
for (var i = 0; i < listOfValueTuples.Length; i++) {
listOfValueTuples[i].Foo = 103; //this works just fine
// another alternative approach:
//
// var x = listOfValueTuples[i];
// x.Foo = 103;
// listOfValueTuples[i] = x; //<-- vital for this alternative approach to work if you omit this changes wont be saved to the original list
}
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Hope this helps someone struggling to make heads of tails out of list-hosted value-tuples.

How to define a catch-all enum value when casting from an integer?

I've got a enum type defined in my C# code that corresponds to all possible values for the NetConnectionStatus field in Win32_NetworkAdapter WMI table, as documented here.
The documentation shows that the integers 0 through 12 each have a unique status name, but then all integers between 13 and 65,535 are lumped into one bucket called "Other." So here's my code:
[Serializable]
public enum NetConnectionStatus
{
Disconnected = 0,
Connecting = 1,
Connected = 2,
Disconnecting = 3,
HardwareNotPresent = 4,
HardwareDisabled = 5,
HardwareMalfunction = 6,
MediaDisconnected = 7,
Authenticating = 8,
AuthenticationSucceeded = 9,
AuthenticationFailed = 10,
InvalidAddress = 11,
CredentialsRequired = 12,
Other
}
This works fine for the values that are not Other. For instance, I can do this:
var result = (NetConnectionStatus) 2;
Assert.AreEqual(NetConnectionStatus.Connected, result);
But for anything in that higher numeric range, it doesn't work so great. I would like it if I could do this:
var result = (NetConnectionStatus) 20;
Assert.AreEqual(NetConnectionStatus.Other, result);
But right now that result variable gets assigned the literal value 20 instead of Other. Is there some out-of-the-box way of accomplishing this, something akin to Parse() but for integers instead of strings, or perhaps some special attribute I'm unaware of? I would prefer to not write my own wrapper method for this if there is already a good way to accomplish this.

If you have a string value, then the closest thing I can think of is to use Enum.TryParse:
NetConnectionStatus result;
if (Enum.TryParse(stringValue, out result) == false)
result = NetConnectionStatus.Other;
For an integer value that you're casting, you can use:
result = (NetConnectionStatus)integerValue;
if (Enum.GetValues(typeof(NetConnectionStatus)).Contains(result) == false)
result = NetConnectionStatus.Other;
Not really ideal, but in C# enums aren't much more than fancy names for integral values, so it's valid to stuff an integer value not in the defined values of the enums into a value of that enum type.
This solution will handle negative numbers, or cases where you have gaps in your enum values more elegantly than doing numerical comparisons.

it would be nice but no. How about
var result = (NetConnectionStatus) 20;
Assert.IsTrue(result >= (int)NetConnectionStatus.Other);

.NET does not such thing as a "any other" enumeration value bucket. Technically, enumeration (enum) is a pretty set of named constants of some underlying type (which is one of following: sbyte, short, int, long and their unsigned counterparts). You can cast an enum value to/from a corresponding type without any losses, as in this example:
enum TestEnum:int // Explicitly stating a type.
{
OnlyElement=0
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Console.WriteLine implicitly calls ToString of the TestEnum.OnlyElement.
Console.WriteLine("OnlyElement == {0}", TestEnum.OnlyElement);
//TestEnum.OnlyElement equals to 0, as demonstrated by this casting:
Console.WriteLine("(int)OnlyElement == {0}", (int)TestEnum.OnlyElement);
//We can do it in reverse...
Console.WriteLine("(TestEnum)0 == ",(TestEnum)0);
// But what happens when we try to cast a value, which is not
// representable by any of enum's named constants,
// into value of enum in question? No exception is thrown
// whatsoever: enum variable simply holds that value, and,
// having no named constant to associate it with, simply returns
// that value when attempting to "ToString"ify it:
Console.WriteLine("(TestEnum)5 == {0}", (TestEnum)5); //prints "(TestEnum)5 == 5".
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
I'd like to repeat it again, enum in .NET is simply a value of the underlying type with some nice decorations like overriden ToString method and flags checking (look here or here if you want to know more about flags). You cannot have an integer with only 14 values like "0..12 and everything else", and so you cannot have such enum. In your example, NetConnectionStatus.Other simply receives single literal value (I assume it would most probably be '13', as the next available positive value of underlying type - however it actually depends on the compiler) as any other enumeration constant would do if not specified explicitly - and, obviously, it does not become a bucket.
However, there are options to achieve simple equation checks for integers/bytes/shorts/longs - and enums alike. Consider this extension method:
static bool IsOther(this NetConnectionStatus A)
{
return (A < (NetConnectionStatus)0) || (A > (NetConnectionStatus)12);
}
Now you can have a simple assertion like this:
var result = (NetConnectionStatus)10;
Trace.Assert(result.IsOther()); //No assertion is triggered; result is NetConnectionStatus.AuthenticationFailed
and
var result = (NetConnectionStatus)20;
Trace.Assert(result.IsOther()); //Assertion failed; result is undefined!
(Of course you can replace IsOther method with IsNotOther, overload it and pretty much anything else you could do with a method.)
Now there is one more thing. Enum class itself contains a method called IsDefined, which allows you to avoid checks for specific enum's value boundaries (<0, >12), therefore preventing unwanted bugs in case enum values would ever be added/removed, at the small performance cost of unboxing and checking each value in enum for a match (I'm not sure how this works under the hood though, I hope these checks are optimized). So your method would look like this:
static bool IsOther(NetConnectionStatus A)
{
return !Enum.IsDefined(typeof(NetConnectionStatus), A);
}
(However, concluding from enum's name, it seems like you want to make a network application/server, and for these performance might be of very great importance - but most probably I'm just being paranoid and this will not be your application's bottleneck. Stability is much more of concern, and, unless you experience real troubles with performance, it is considered to be much better practice to enable as much stability&safety&portability as possible. Enum.IsDefined is much more understandable, portable and stable than the explicit boundaries checking.)
Hope that helps!

Thanks everyone for the replies. As confirmed by all of you, there is indeed no way to do this out-of-the-box. For the benefit of others I thought I'd post the (custom) code I ended up writing. I wrote an extension method that utilizes a custom attribute on the enum value that I called [CatchAll].
public class CatchAll : Attribute { }
public static class EnumExtensions
{
public static T ToEnum<T, U>(this U value) where T : struct, IConvertible where U : struct, IComparable, IConvertible, IFormattable, IComparable<U>, IEquatable<U>
{
var result = (T)Enum.ToObject(typeof(T), value);
var values = Enum.GetValues(typeof(T)).Cast<T>().ToList();
if (!values.Contains(result))
{
foreach (var enumVal in from enumVal in values
let info = typeof(T).GetField(enumVal.ToString())
let attrs = info.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(CatchAll), false)
where attrs.Length == 1
select enumVal)
{
result = enumVal;
break;
}
}
return result;
}
}
So then I just have to apply that [CatchAll] attribute to the Other value in the enum definition. Then I can do things like this:
int value = 13;
var result = value.ToEnum<NetConnectionStatus, int>();
Assert.AreEqual(NetConnectionStatus.Other, result);
And this:
ushort value = 20;
result = value.ToEnum<NetConnectionStatus, ushort>();
Assert.AreEqual(NetConnectionStatus.Other, result);

Generically accessing multidimensional arrays in C#

C# allows creating and populating multidimensional arrays, here is a simple example:
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
var arr = (int[,])CreateArray(new [] {2, 3}, 8);
Console.WriteLine("Value: " + arr[0,0]);
}
// Creates a multidimensional array with the given dimensions, and assigns the
// given x to the first array element
public static Array CreateArray<T>(int[] dimLengths, T x)
{
var arr = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(T), dimLengths);
var indices = new int[dimLengths.Length];
for (var i = 0; i < indices.Length; i++)
indices[i] = 0;
arr.SetValue(x, indices); // Does boxing/unboxing
return arr;
}
This works well. However, for some reason there is no generic version of Array.SetValue(), so the code above does boxing/unboxing, which I'd like to avoid. I was wondering if I missed something or if this is an omission in the .NET API?

No, you are not missing anything: Arrays does not have an option that sets the value without boxing and unboxing.
You do have an alternative to this with LINQ, but it is probably going to be slower than boxing/unboxing for a single element, because compiling a dynamic lambda would "eat up" the potential benefits:
public static Array CreateArray<T>(int[] dimLengths, T x) {
var arr = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(T), dimLengths);
var p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(object), "arr");
var ind = new Expression[dimLengths.Length];
for (var i = 0; i < dimLengths.Length; i++) {
ind[i] = Expression.Constant(0);
}
var v = Expression.Variable(arr.GetType(), "cast");
var block = Expression.Block(
new[] {v}
, new Expression[] {
Expression.Assign(v, Expression.Convert(p, arr.GetType()))
, Expression.Assign(Expression.ArrayAccess(v, ind), Expression.Constant(x))
, Expression.Constant(null, typeof(object))
}
);
Expression.Lambda<Func<object, object>>(block, p).Compile()(arr);
return arr;
}
If you wanted to set all elements in a loop, you could modify the above to compile a dynamically created lambda with multiple nested loops. In this case, you could get an improvement on having to perform multiple boxing and unboxing in a series of nested loops.
for some reason there is no generic version of Array.SetValue()
While it is definitely possible to write a generic method similar to SetValue in the Array class, it may not be desirable. A generic method on a non-generic class would give a false promise of compile-time type safety, which cannot be guaranteed, because the compiler does not know the runtime type of the Array object.

I didn't find any generic ways either to set a value into an Array instance, so I guess the only workaround is to use the unsafe context to avoid boxing.
However, there can be no generic version, now when I think of it. See, when you define a generic method method<T>()..., you do define the parameter for the method: ...<T>(T[] a)... where you have to be specific about the dimensions count, which is one. To create a twodimensional parameter, you define it like this ...<T>(T[,] a)... and so on.
As you can see, by the current syntax of C#, you simple cannot create a generic method, which can accept any-dimensional array.

Inline use of function returning more than one value in C#

I am used to using functions that return a single value "in-line" like so:
Label1.Text = firstString + functionReturnSecondString(aGivenParameter);
Can this be done for a function that returns two values?
Hypothetical example:
label1.Text = multipleReturnFunction(parameter).firstValue
I have been looking into returning more than one value and it looks like the best options are using a tuple, struct, or an array list.
I made a working function that retuns a struct. However the way I got it to work I need to first call the function, then I can use the values. It doesn't seem possible to make it happen all on the same line without writing another function.
multipleReturnFunction(parameter);
Label1.Text = firstString + classOfStruct.secondString;
I haven't made a function that returns a tuple or array list yet, so I'm not sure. Is it possible to call those functions and reference the return values "inline"?
I appreciate your feedback.

I have a grotty hack for exactly this type of scenario - when you want to perform multiple operations on the return value without defining an extra variable to store it:
public static TResult Apply<TInput, TResult>(this TInput input, Func<TInput, TResult> transformation)
{
return transformation(input);
}
... and here's the reason it came about in the first place:
var collection = Enumerable.Range(1, 3);
// Average reimplemented with Aggregate.
double average = collection
.Aggregate(
new { Count = 0, Sum = 0 },
(acc, i) => new { Count = acc.Count + 1, Sum = acc.Sum + i })
.Apply(a => (double)a.Sum / (double)a.Count); // Note: we have access to both Sum and Count despite never having stored the result of the call to .Aggregate().
Console.WriteLine("Average: {0}", average);
Needless to say this is better suited for academic exercises than actual production code.

Alternatively, use the ref or they out keyword.
Example:
int a = 0, b = 0;
void DoSomething(ref int a, ref int b) {
a = 1;
b = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine(a); // Prints 1
Console.WriteLine(b); // Prints 2
It's not inline and I personally would consider a class or a struct before using the ref or the out keyword. Let's consider the theory: when you want to return multiple things, you have in fact an object that has multiple properties which you want to make available to the caller of your function.
Therefore it is much more correct to actually create an object (either by using a class or a struct) that represents what you want to make available and returning that.
The only time I use the ref or the out keyword is when using DLL imports because those functions often have pointers as their calling arguments and I personally don't see any benefit in using them in your typical normal application.

To do this inline, I think you would have to have another method that takes your struct and gives you the string you are looking for.
public string NewMethod(object yourStruct)
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", yourStruct.value1, yourStruct.value2);
}
Then in the page, you do this:
Label1.Text = NewMethod(multipleReturnFunction(parameter));

C# doesn't have Inline functions, but it does support anonymous functions which can be closures.
With these techniques, you can say:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
}))("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="123"+arg;
secondString="456";
}))("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
or name the delegate and reuse it:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
Action<String> m=
arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
};
m("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
m("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
So, do you really need a method returns multiple values?

Each method can return only one value. Thats how methods defined in .NET
Methods are declared in a class or struct by specifying the access
level such as public or private, optional modifiers such as abstract
or sealed, the return value, the name of the method, and any method
parameters
If you need to return more than one value from method, then you have three options:
Return complex type which will hold all values. That cannot help you in this case, because you will need local variable to store value returned by method.
Use out parameters. Also not your case - you will need to declare parameters before method call.
Create another method, which does all work and returns single value.
Third option looks like
Label1.Text = AnotherMethod(parameters);
And implementation
public string AnotherMethod(parameters)
{
// use option 1 or 2 to get both values
// return combined string which uses both values and parameters
}
BTW One more option - do not return values at all - you can use method which sets several class fields.