We Keep Coding

how to get the anonymous backing field name of an auto-implemented properties

Not a full expert in C# here. Sorry in advance if this is a very common question.
consider the following property.
public bool IsOn{ get;set; }
above getter/setter property has anonymous backing field according to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/auto-implemented-properties
Is there a way for me to see what this "anonymous backing field" name is so that I can expand the setter without adding extra code. All I want to do is log the content of the values that's getting set to in a dll where this code exist. For example,
public bool IsOn
{
get;
set
{
Log(value);
"field name generated by c#" = value;
}
}
Or do I have to create a field manually every time I want to see what the value is being set to? if so it seems like a very unproductive approach to have them used when we consider about usability. Mind you this is only one of the setters I want to log out. there are many more needs logging on this specific dll

An Auto-Implemented Property is a property that has the default get- and set-accessors. If you have to add logic to them, you have to create a usual property with a backing field:
private bool _IsOn;
public bool IsOn
{
get { return _IsOn; }
set
{
Log(value);
_IsOn = value;
}
}
However, a property that is logging somewhere is not a real property anymore, that's a heavy side-effect in my opinion. I would make it a method:
private bool _isActive = false;
public void ChangeState(bool active)
{
Log(active);
_isActive = active;
}
public bool IsActivated => _isActive;

How can I use C# predefined get and set with a private field?

Usually I would build my field like this:
private string name;
public void setName(string name){
this.name = name;
}
public string getName(){
return name
}
that works perfectly when doing this: string myString = object.getName() or object.setName("Alex").
However, I thought I might give the inbuilt C# functions a try.
So I did this:
private string name { get; set; }
however, that won't work at all. When I try to access the field with object.name, I can't even access it due to private restriction.
Did I misunderstand something about these predefined get/sets?
If I had to mark every field as public, why should I even use getters or setters? I could access the field like in the snippet above without get and set?

You're mixing up way too many things - you might want to read a book on C#, really. It usually takes some time to get rid of some of the preconceptions from your old programming language - but you really do want to do that; even Java and C# are incredibly different when you go beyond the surface appearance.
First, nothing is forcing you to use auto-properties. If you want to use properties while keeping your manual backing fields, you can simply use this:
private string name;
public string Name { get { return name; } set { name = value; } }
If you do want to use auto-properties, you have to understand that the backing field is hidden - you're only declaring the property; and you want that property to be public (though you can also use accessibility modifiers on the individual get/set "methods", e.g. private set). But the field is never accessible - it's "always" behind the property.
To mirror your original code, this is what you want:
public string Name { get; set; }
Only if you ever need to move away from using auto-properties (that is, you need to add some logic to either the getter or the setter), you will have to reintroduce the manual backing field, and stop using auto-properties - see the first code sample in my answer.

Did I misunderstand something about these predefined get/sets?
Yes, you did. The property itself has to be public. If you're using auto-properties, then you can't do any validation since the backing field is compiler generated. If you want to actually do something with the value before, you can use a property with a backing field:
private string name;
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
set
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(name))
throw new ArgumentException("name cannot be null");
name = value
}
}
Because this:
public string Name { get; set; }
Generated a backing field like this:
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never), CompilerGenerated]
private string <Name>k__BackingField;
public string Name
{
[CompilerGenerated]
get
{
return this.<Name>k__BackingField;
}
[CompilerGenerated]
set
{
this.<Name>k__BackingField = value;
}
}

Just do
public string Name { get; set; }
That compiles down to a private field with an unspeakable name, and a public property. That public property has a public get method and a public set method.
Seems to be exactly what you want.
Alternatively, use
public string Name { get; private set; }
Your get method will be public as before, but the set method will be private then.
As of C# 6 (Visual Studio 2015), you can even do
public string Name { get; }
In that case, there is no set method, not even a private one, but you can assign to the underlying field through the property in the constructor.

Did I misunderstand something about these predefined get/sets?
Yes, a bit.
If I had to mark every field as public, why should I even use getters or setters? I could access the field like in the snippet above without get and set?
This is the part that you're missing. The syntax you are talking about it called an auto-implemented property. That is, when you write:
public string Name { get; set; }
the C# compiler generates a private field, getter, and setter behind the scenes for you. You can see them if you look at the metadata for your class, and get access to them via reflection. They have the exact same names as the getter or setter you would write yourself (typically get_Name and set_Name). The only difference is, you didn't have to write them.
The reason to do this is because most getter/setter pairs only exist to add a layer of abstraction over a private field, and consist of a single return name or name = value line of code. If that's all you want, you may as well let the compiler write it for you.
However, if you ever needed something more complex, you can manually implement the getter and setter yourself, and callers won't know the difference. In other words, if you change:
public string Name { get; set; }
to
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
RecalculateSomeStuff();
}
}
then the metadata for your class is identical. Anyone using your class does not have to even be recompiled to pick up the new setter, because as far as the callers are concerned, they're still called set_Name directly.

What the others want to tell you is that you should deferentiate between fields (privates) and properties (public) (is not a rule but a convention)
private string name;
public string Name{ get; set;}
// you can acces to the property:
var objectName = YourObject.Name
// and set the value of your property:
YourObject.Name = "whatever"

First of all the equivalent of your code is
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get {return _name;}
set { _name = value; }
}
OR simply
public string Name { get; set; }
To define the accessibility level of the "Name" field, you put the access modifiers (public, protected, etc.) before get or set
Example
//Read only properties
public string Name
{
get {return _name;}
private set { _name = value; }
}
To have more details and see difference between public fieal and public property see Difference between Auto - Implemented Properties and normal public member
PS :
To write this in Visual studio you can use snippet, type prop keyword then tab key or propfull and press tab key. press tab key our shift+tab to navigate between highlighted fields

Can you use a property without a field in C#?

In C#, can you use a property without a field?
Edit for clarification:
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name value; }
}
It seem's like they are always paired, is there a circumstance where we don't use the field at all?

All properties must have a field, assuming they are simple properties to store a value (*). However, the language (as of version 3.0) offers a way to declare the field implicitly. For example:
public int Value { get; set; }
That would declare a property named Value with an implicit field backing it and the getter and setter both public. You can include an accessibility keyword on either the getter or setter to restrict access to the property. For example:
public int Value { get; private set; }
In this case, only the owning type may call the setter, but any class can call the getter.
The next version of C# will have additional features for dealing with these "automatic properties", allowing you to provide a concise initialization syntax for them. For now, you have to initialize them in a constructor.
EDIT: based on your edited question, it seems worthwhile to address this specific question: "is there a circumstance where we don't use the field at all?"
The answer to that is, it's not common for no field to be involved at all. But it is possible, and it's not uncommon for a property to not use a field as storage for the property. For example, imagine a Rectangle object with an Area property:
class Rectangle
{
public double Width { get; private set; }
public double Height { get; private set; }
public double Area { get { return Width * Height; } }
}
Obviously there are fields involved (two of them), but there is not a field specifically dedicated to the Area property.
Another example would be where the property delegates. For example, in a WinForms Form subclass, it's common to expose specific control values via a property:
class MyForm : Form
{
public string EditText
{
get { return textBox1.Text; }
set { textBox1.Text = value; }
}
}
Again, the textBox1 field is being used here. But it actually represents something other than the property itself. The property is using a member of the object that field references.
I hope that clarifies the relationship between fields and properties adequately for you. Please feel free to ask for further clarifications if needed.
(*) Note that the only real rule for properties is that they have at least one of the getter or setter, and those methods can do whatever you want. I assume we are talking about simple value-based properties here.

A property is not required to have a field
public string Version
{
get
{
return "1.3.Awesome";
}
}

If you're asking what I think you are, the answer is yes, you just put get; set; inside the property declaration. C# encapsulates a variable for you.
EDIT: example
//no need for field declaration
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}

How to handle properties with dynamic defaults

I often have a situation like this when creating simple data objects. I have a property called Label that should have a default based on the Name of the object. So if no label is set then the Name is used otherwise use the set Label. A simple example in C#
public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (_label == null) return Name;
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
Now the problem is if you want to edit this object you can't just bind to the Label property or you will get the default value and it will look as if there is a value there when there really isn't. So what I end up doing is create another, read-only property that does the defaulting and I use that is all instances except for when the base object is being edited. This leads to many extra properties with weird names like LabelWithDefault. Another alternative I've tried is to make Label handle the defaulting and make a new property called RealLabel that is used for editing the base object. This is just as bad.
I've thought of moving the defaulting code somewhere else but I haven't found a good place for it in any "normal" model that does not replicate the defaulting code many times.
What I have started to do now is initialize the Label field when the Name field is set (and the Label field is not) and then treat the Label field as a normal field. This works but now the code for defaulting is tied to the wrong property. Why should the Name know that the Label field cares about it? So this is also not "right."
Does anyone have any better ways of handling this problem?
I think there is a little confusion about what I'm asking for. Basically I need two different views to the same object for two different uses. In the first is the editing of the object itself where I want unset fields to show as empty (unset). The second is for all other cases (including when the object is the value of a field of another object) where I want to show each field with its dynamically determined default. Just setting the default the first time doesn't no help because if the (in this case) Name field changes then the Label field must also change until the Label field is set.
The answers are getting closer but I still think that they are too targeted to the example I gave. I was trying to give a concrete example for expository purposes but in reality this is more of a best-practices issue. The example I gave was C# and for a string property but I have the same problem with most languages and systems that I use that have frameworks where the data access and data display are handled for you as well as for data types other than strings. Changing the object that is queried from the data source is possible but often tricky and knowing when to make the change (use a sublclass in this case but not in that one) is particularly difficult.

public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (_label == null)
_label = Name;
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
Regarding your update:
You could subclass your object. The base-class would return null if the field has not been set and the sub-class would return your default value. Thus if you need to query if a value has been set, you would cast to the base-class.

Deleted previous answers/updates for brevity.
Update 2:
I would have to say the best way is to track whether the property has been set or not with an IsPropertySet bool. The Getter for the property would check that value to see if it should be returning its own value or the default value. And the setter for the property would set the IsPropertySet according to the set value (true if the value is not null, false if it is). The code that is using the class could then look at the IsPropertySet value to determine if it is receiving a set value or the default when it calls the Property's Getter.
public class FooBat {
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsLabelSet { get; set; }
public string Label {
get {
if (IsLabelSet)
return _label;
else
return Name;
}
set {
IsLabelSet = value != null;
_label = value;
}
}
}

I use a Nameable interface a lot (with getName()). Before I start, I'll suggest that you don't want to do this at all. It should be the domain of your display logic, not your domain objects. Usually it's the code consuming the FooBat that is able to make this decision in a better way than the object itself. That aside...
public interface Label{
string getLabel();
boolean isDefault(); //or isValued() or use instanceof expressions
}
public interface Nameable{
string getName();
}
public class FooBat implements Nameable {
public string Name { get; set; }
public Label Label {
get {
if (_label == null) {
_label = new DefaultLabel(this);
}
return _label;
}
set { _label = value; }
}
}
public class DefaultLabel implements Label{
public DefaultCharSequence(Nameable named){
this.named = named;
}
public string getLabel(){
return named.getName();
}
public boolean isDefault(){ return true; }
}
public class StringLabel implements Label {
...
}
It all essentially boils down to returning a better class for your label object.

When should you use a field rather than a property?

Can anyone clearly articulate when you use a field and when to use a property in class design?
Consider:
public string Name;
Or:
private string _Name;
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
I realize that the second method is more proper and flexible, so that's what I try to use, generally.
But then why do I see people use the first method? Are they just lazy, or is there some specific situation where it's the correct choice? Is it just a matter of preference?

Well in C# 3.0 you can actually write:
public string Name {get; set;}
Which allows you to be proper and lazy.
Generally speaking, with properties, you get proper encapsulation. You have the choice to allow setting a value, or getting it, or both. Using a public member, you don't have that option.
It's probably one-part preference, and one-part how your team decides to handle quick and dirty class definitions, but I would say, use properties for get/sets.
To answer
Can anyone clearly articulate when you use an attribute and when to use a property in class design?
You shouldn't ever use a public attribute. You should always use a property instead. It's safer and more flexible. That said, people will be lazy, and just use a public member. However, with C# 3.0 you can use a more terse syntax to define properties, which should satisfy your inner laziness.
Simply type prop and hit <tab> to expedite the laziness in adding a property.

Just some additional information to Alan's reply:
public string Name {get; set;}
is the same as
private string _Name;
public string Name{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
If you want to disallow the set function of Name, you can have
public string Name {get; private set;}

Properties are more maintainable than fields, you can encapsulate logic in your setters/getters, allowing you to hide the implementation.
They also make refactoring easier.
More information:
Property Usage Guidelines
Field Usage Guidelines

Using properties you can control it's security:
public string Foo { protected get; private set; }
Properties gives easy way to raise events:
public string Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
}
set
{
bool cancel = false;
if(BeforeEvent != null) // EventHandler<CancelEventArgs> BeforeEvent
{
CancelEventArgs e = new CancelEventArgs();
BeforeEvent(this, e);
cancel = e.Cancel;
}
if(!cancel)
{
_foo = value;
if(AfterEvent != null) // EventHandler<EventArgs> AfterEvent
{
AfterEvent(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
}
Also I often use code like this:
string Foo
{
set
{
IsFooSet = value != null;
}
}
bool IsFooSet
{
get { return _isFoo; }
set
{
_isFoo = value;
if(value) // some event raise or controls on form change
}
}

When you make the field public, you allow the user to do whatever they want to do to the field. They can assign unexpected values, invalid values, values that can cause overflow, etc.
With the property, you have control over whether to allow the setting of new values to the field, massaging the value before storing it, notifying interested parties about the change of the field's value, etc. And the same idea for returning value through the getter. For .NET framework from 2.0 up, you can set the accessor for the getter, setter. Say, you only want the user to only have read access to the field, then you make the getter public, but the setter private or protected.

In addition to the already-given reasons for preferring properties, there's also lots of cool stuff in System.ComponentModel to do with data binding and change notification that only works with properties, rather than fields. For example, look at the documentation around PropertyChangedHandler.

A property like defined above acts like a getter and setter. The only benefits of using a property is that you can treat it like a variable with access restriction.
public string Name { get; private set; }
This property can be accessed publicly, but can only be set privately. (You wouldn't want anyone changing your name with out your consent now would you! ;) )