We Keep Coding

C# constructors sharing code and then referencing properties already set [duplicate]

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.

How can I access private members from other classes?

I'm not that new to C# but don't have as much experience as in Java.
As you know, in Java, we can access all the private members from outer classes.
So I tried the same thing in C# because I had some fields and methods needed to be accessed from only inside my plugin library and didn't want it to be shown to users. A simple example can be like this.
public static class StaticClass {
public class InstanceClass {
private int oldValue;
public int Value;
}
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic) {
ic.oldValue = ic.Value;
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic) {
ic.Value = ic.oldValue;
}
}
If I make the field oldValue public, then it'll be mess and look dirty when end users use the plugin. It doesn't have to be an Inner class or in a some specific form. I just want to know if there is any way to control or access private members of an instance from other static classes in the same assembly only by me.

For allowing access only within assembly use internal modifier.
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}

This is not possible in C#. The container class has no special access over the nested class.
You can access private members of the container from the nested class, but not vice versa. The pattern you're trying to use simply isn't used in C# - it's a violation of member accessibility. There are some hacks to force the Java pattern on C# (using reflection or abusing interfaces), but they are just that - hacks.
The "cleanest" approach might look something like this:
public static class StaticClass
{
private interface IInstanceClassInternal
{
int OldValue { get; set; }
}
public sealed class InstanceClass : IInstanceClassInternal
{
int IInstanceClassInternal.OldValue { get; set; }
public int Value;
}
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic)
{
((IInstanceClassInternal)ic).OldValue = ic.Value;
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic)
{
ic.Value = ((IInstanceClassInternal)ic).OldValue;
}
}
It's obvious that you're trying to write Java in C# - the patterns, the coding style... That's probably a bad idea. Those static methods should probably be extension methods. The "hidden functionality in an object" doesn't quite sit with C#'s notion of OOP - your parent shouldn't have free access to your guts, it should only really have the same public interface everyone else has. After all, that's the whole point of LSP - such tight coupling is quite tricky for any extensibility. Why separate StaticClass from InstanceClass in the first place, if you want StaticClass to mess with InstanceClasses privates? Just make Backup and Restore public members of InstanceClass - or even a part of an interface (perhaps even through explicit implementation, if you want to "hide" it from users of InstanceClass).

You can use the internal access modifier, see https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173121.aspx
Internal is only visible from inside the assembly
Example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/FNavfE

Have you tried to make it "internal"? It will be available in same dll but not external dll.
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}

Technically, you can use Reflection (if you insist on private field and a static class methods):
using System.Reflection;
...
public static void Backup(InstanceClass ic) {
if (null == ic)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ic");
ic.GetType()
.GetField("oldValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
.SetValue(ic, ic.Value);
}
public static void Restore(InstanceClass ic) {
if (null == ic)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ic");
ic.Value = (int) (ic.GetType()
.GetField("oldValue", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
.GetValue(ic));
}
however, a much better approach is to change access modifier from private to internal:
public class InstanceClass {
internal int oldValue;
public int Value;
}
Even better solution is to move both Backup and Restore methods into InstanceClass:
public class InstanceClass {
private int oldValue;
public int Value;
public void Backup() {
oldValue = Value;
}
public void Restore() {
Value = oldValue;
}
}

This field oldValue is an implementation detail of both StaticClass and InstanceClass. Lets make InstanceClass an implementation detail of StaticClass and export an interface StaticClass.IInstance to external clients:
public static class StaticClass {
public interface IInstance {
int Value { get; set; }
}
private class InstanceClass: IInstance {
public int oldValue;
public Value { get; set; }
}
// Static class becomes responsible for handing out `IInstance` objects
public static IInstance GetInstance() {
return new InstanceClass();
}
public static void Backup(IInstance i) {
if (i is InstanceClass ic) {
ic.oldValue = ic.Value;
}
else {
throw new InvallidOperationException("Can only Backup IInstance objects that were created by GetInstance");
}
}
public static void Restore(IInstance i) {
if (I is InstanceClass ic)
{
ic.Value = ic.oldValue;
}
else {
throw new InvallidOperationException("Can only Restore IInstance objects that were created by GetInstance");
}
}
This solution is similar to the one Luaan proposes. But instead of using an interface to export private data, it uses an interface to limit the publicly available data; to my opinion this is a cleaner design with less surprises.
It does change Value from a field to a property; so when you really need a field, this pattern does not work.
The static class in the example of OP makes it a bit awkward and having better solutions, but imagine this in a regular class, perhaps in a repository. Working on a repository, where observers should be notified when properties of items in the repository are set and not wanting the items to contain a reference to the repository or to the repositories observers, led me to searching for "method only accessible to container class?" which led me to this question.
I intend to solve it as follows:
public class Repo
{
public interface IItem
{
int Id { get; }
string MyProperty { get; }
}
private class Item
{
public int Id { get; }
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
public bool TrySetMyProperty(string newValue)
{
if (!Equals(MyProperty, newValue) &&
IsPreconditionValid())
{
MyProperty = newValue;
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
IsPreconditionValid() => true;
}
}
public event EventHandler<EventArgs> OnChanged;
private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<int, Item> items = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Item>();
public IItem GetOrCreateItemById(int id)
{
bool changed = false;
IItem result = items.GetOrAdd(int, CreateItem);
if (changed)
{
OnChanged?.Invoke(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
return result;
IItem CreateItem(int key)
{
changed = true;
return new Item() { Id = key };
}
}
public bool TrySetItemMyProperty(int id, string newValue)
{
if (items.TryGet(id, out Item i))
{
if (i.TrySetMyProperty(newValue))
{
OnChanged?.Invoke(this, EventArgs.Empty);
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}

Inherit in generic classes C#

My brain is gonna to explode. :) So I would like to get help from you.
Please, think about my question like about just programmer puzzle. (Actually. perhaps it is very easy question for you, but not for me.)
It is needed to create array of objects. For example List where T is class. (I will describe Class T below). Also it is needed create “container” that will contain this array and some methods for work with this array. For example Add(), Remove(int IndexToRemove).
Class T must have field "Container", this way each elements of our array would be able to know where is it contained and has access its container's fields and methods. Notice, that in this case Class T should have type parameter. Indeed, it is not known beforehand which container's type is used.
Let us denote this class container as A and class element (class T) as AUnit.
Code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
a.Add();
a.Units[0].SomeField +=100;
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class A
{
public List<AUnit> Units;
public A()//ctor
{
Units = new List<AUnit>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new AUnit(this));
}
}
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
}
Public fields should be protected or private of course, but let think about this later.
You can ask “why we create public A Container field in AUnit”? We create field public string Name{get;private set;} (actually property but nevermind). And also we would like to be able to change value of this field for example method [Class AUnit] public bool Rename(string newName)();. The main idea of this method is changing Name field only that case if no one element in array (public List Units; ) has the same name like newName. But to achieve this, Rename method has to have access to all names that is currently used. And that is why we need Container field.
Code of extended version AUnit
class AUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public A Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public AUnit(A container)
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (AUnit unt in this.Container.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
Ok. If you still read it let's continue. Now we need to create Class B and class BUnit which will be very similar like Class A and Class Aunit. And finally the main question of this puzzle is HOW WE CAN DO IT? Of course, I can CopyPaste and bit modify A and AUnit and create this code.
class B
{
public List<BUnit> Units; //Only Type Changing
public B()//ctor Name changing...
{
Units = new List<BUnit>();//Only Type Changing
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new BUnit(this));//Only Type Changing
}
}
class BUnit
{
public int SomeField;
public B Container;//Only Type Changing
public string Name { get; private set; }
public A a; //NEW FIELD IS ADDED (just one)
public BUnit(B container) //Ctor Name and arguments type changing
{
this.SomeField = 43;
this.Container = container;
this.Name = "Default";
this.a=new A(); //New ROW (just one)
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
Boolean res = true;
foreach (BUnit unt in this.Container.Units) //Only Type Changing
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = false;
break;
}
}
if (res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return res;
}
}
And I can to use this classes this way.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Add();
b.Units[0].a.Units[0].SomeField += 100;
bool res= b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
res = b.Units[0].a.Units[0].Rename("1");
Console.ReadKey();
}
This construction is can be used to create “non-homogeneous trees”.
Help, I need somebody help, just no anybody…. [The Beatles]
I created B and BUnit using CopyPaste.
But how it can be done using “macro-definitions” or “Generic”, inherit or anything else in elegant style? (C# language)
I think that there is no reason to describe all my unsuccessful attempts and subquestions. Already topic is too long. : )
Thanks a lot if you still read it and understand what I would like to ask.

You need to implement a base type, lets call it UnitBase, with all common functionality. I'd structure your code the following way:
Create an interface for your container, this way you can change implementation to more performant solutions without modifying the elements you will be adding to the container.
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
}
Following the idea stated in 1, why not make the search logic belong to the container? It makes much more sense, as it will mostly depend on how the container is implemented:
public interface IContainer
{
Q Add<Q>() where Q : UnitBase, new();
IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units { get; }
bool Contains(string name);
}
A specific implementation of IContainer could be the following:
public class Container : IContainer
{
public Container()
{
list = new List<UnitBase>();
}
private List<UnitBase> list;
public Q Add<Q>() where Q: UnitBase, new()
{
var newItem = Activator.CreateInstance<Q>();
newItem.SetContainer(this);
list.Add(newItem);
return newItem;
}
public IEnumerable<UnitBase> Units => list.Select(i => i);
public bool Contains(string name) =>
Units.Any(unit => unit.Name == name);
}
Create a base class for your AUnit and BUnit types condensing all common functionality:
public abstract class UnitBase
{
protected UnitBase()
{
}
public IContainer Container { get; private set; }
public int SomeField;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetContainer(IContainer container)
{
Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
if (Container.Contains(newName))
return false;
this.Name = newName; //No need to use String.Copy
return true;
}
}
Implement your concrete types:
public class BUnit : UnitBase
{
public int SpecificBProperty { get; private set; }
public BUnit()
{
}
}
Shortcomings of this approach? Well, the container must be of type <UnitBase>, I've removed the generic type because it really wasn't doing much in this particular case as it would be invariant in the generic type.
Also, keep in mind that nothing in the type system avoids the following:
myContainer.Add<BUnit>();
myContainer.Add<AUnit>();
If having two different types in the same container is not an option then this whole set up kind of crumbles down. This issue was present in the previous solution too so its not something new, I simply forgot to point it out.

InBetween , I am very thankful to you for your advices. Actually I can't say that I understood your answer in full, but using your ideas I have done what I want.
Looks like my variant works well. However I would like to hear your (and everyone) opinions about code described below. The main goal of this structure is creating non-homogeneous trees. So could you estimate it from this side.
First of all. We need to create interfaces for both classes. We describe there all "cross-used" functions.
public interface IUnit<T>
{
string Name { get;}
void SetContainer(T t);
bool Rename(String newName);
}
public interface IContainer
{
bool IsNameBusy(String newName);
int Count { get; }
}
Next. Create Base for Unit Classes for future inheritance. We will use in this inheritors methods from Container Base so we need generic properties and IUnit interface.
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
Unfortunately I don't know yet how to solve the problem with Constructor parameters. That is why I use method
SetContainer(T container).
Code:UnitBase
class UnitBase<T> : IUnit<T> where T : IContainer
{
protected T Container;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public UnitBase()
{
this.Name = "Default";
}
public void SetContainer(T container)
{
this.Container = container;
}
public bool Rename(String newName)
{
bool res = Container.IsNameBusy(newName);
if (!res) this.Name = String.Copy(newName);
return !res;
}
}
Next. Create ContainerBase
ContainerBase should:
1) has IContainer interface.
2)has information about what it will contain:
... where U : IUnit<C>, new()
3)and .... has information about what itself is. This information we need to pass as parameter to SetContainer() method.
Code ContainerBase:
class ContainerBase<U, C> : IContainer //U - Unit Class. C-Container Class
where U : IUnit<C>, new()
where C : ContainerBase<U, C>
{
protected List<U> Units;
public U this[int index] { get { return Units[index]; } }
public ContainerBase()//ctor
{
this.Units = new List<U>();
}
public void Add()
{
this.Units.Add(new U());
this.Units.Last().SetContainer(((C)this));//may be a bit strange but actualy this will have the same type as <C>
}
public bool IsNameBusy(String newName)
{
bool res = false;
foreach (var unt in this.Units)
{
if (unt.Name == newName)
{
res = true;
break;
}
}
return res;
}
public int Count { get { return this.Units.Count; } }
}
Cast ((TContainer)(this)) may be is a bit strange. But using ContainerBase we always should use NewInheritorContainer. So this cast is just do nothing…looks like...
Finally. This classes can be used like in this example.
class SheetContainer : ContainerBase<SheetUnit,SheetContainer> {public SheetContainer(){}}
class SheetUnit : UnitBase<SheetContainer>
{
public CellContainer Cells;
public PictureContainer Pictures;
public SheetUnit()
{
this.Cells = new CellContainer();
this.Pictures = new PictureContainer();
}
}
class CellContainer : ContainerBase<CellUnit, CellContainer> { public CellContainer() { } }
class CellUnit : UnitBase<CellContainer>
{
public string ValuePr;//Private Field
private const string ValuePrDefault = "Default";
public string Value//Property for Value
{
//All below are Just For Example.
get
{
return this.ValuePr;
}
set
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
else
{
this.ValuePr = String.Copy(value);
}
}
}
public CellUnit()
{
this.ValuePr = ValuePrDefault;
}
}
class PictureContainer : ContainerBase<PictureUnit, PictureContainer> { public PictureContainer() { } }
class PictureUnit : UnitBase<PictureContainer>
{
public int[,] Pixels{get;private set;}
public PictureUnit()
{
this.Pixels=new int[,]{{10,20,30},{11,12,13}};
}
public int GetSizeX()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(1);
}
public int GetSizeY()
{
return this.Pixels.GetLength(0);
}
public bool LoadFromFile(string path)
{
return false;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SheetContainer Sheets = new SheetContainer();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets.Add();
Sheets[0].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[1].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Pictures.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells.Add();
Sheets[2].Cells[0].Value = "FirstTest";
bool res= Sheets[0].Rename("First");//res=true
res=Sheets[2].Rename("First");//res =false
int res2 = Sheets.Count;
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures[0].Pixels[1, 2];//13
res2 = Sheets[2].Pictures.Count;//1
res2 = Sheets[1].Pictures.Count;//0
res2 = Sheets[0].Pictures[0].GetSizeX();//3
Console.ReadKey();
}
Looks like it works like I want. But I didn’t test it full.
Let me say Thank you again, InBetween.

Polymorphism without using the virtual keyword

Obviously using virtual and override is the normal situation, but does this telecoms'ish example count?
public class Pipe
{
// whole bunch of protected member variables such as bandwidth, latency, download limit
// etc,
public int GetCost()
{
// work out cost based on above
}
}
public class BigFatPipe : Pipe
{
public BigFatPipe()
{
// sets up the member variables one way
}
}
public class CheapestPossiblePipe: Pipe
{
public CheapestPossiblePipe()
{
// sets up the member variables another way
}
}
then you might call
PrintPrice(new BigFatPipe())
PrintPrice(new CheapestPossiblePipe())
public void PrintPrice(Pipe pipe)
{
int a = pipe.GetCost();
....
}
You'll get two different answers. This isn't the most useful example but does it count?

This post here has a useful discussion of what exactly polymorphism is.
I think most definitions do not explicitly state that an object must have virtual functions to be polymorphic - so yes, I think your example counts.

Constructor overloading is a recognized method to implement static polymorphism. While this isn't really constructor overloading, it's close. So yes, I'd call it polymorphism.

This pattern does work, but introducing a bunch of classes will confuse the user uselessly: they will wonder what the classes do differently.
A few factories methods will do the same job and will be easier to understand and maintain:
public class Pipe
{
// whole bunch of private member variables such as bandwidth, latency, download limit
// etc,
public int GetCost()
{
// work out cost based on above
}
public static Pipe MakeBigFatPipe()
{
var result = new Pipe();
// sets up the member variables one way
return result;
}
public static Pipe MakeCheapestPossiblePipe()
{
var result = new Pipe();
// sets up the member variables another way
return result;
}
}

If I were you I would use folowing approach:
public interface IGetCost
{
int GetCost();
}
public class Pipe : IGetCost
{
public int GetCost(){}
}
public class BigFatPipe : IGetCost
{
//aggregation
private readonly Pipe _pipe;
public BigFatPipe(Pipe pipe)
{
_pipe = pipe;
}
public int GetCost() { }
}
public class CheapestPossiblePipe : IGetCost
{
private readonly Pipe _pipe;
public CheapestPossiblePipe(Pipe pipe)
{
_pipe = pipe;
}
public int GetCost() { }
}
public static void PrintPrice(IGetCost obj)
{
int cost = obj.GetCost();
Console.WriteLine(cost);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IGetCost p;
p = new Pipe();
PrintPrice(p);
p = new BigFatPipe();
PrintPrice(p);
p = new CheapestPossiblePipe();
PrintPrice(p);
}
I also need to say that there're two different things - polymorphism and overloading
polymorphism
public class foo
{
public virtual void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooA : foo
{
public override void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooB : foo
{
public new void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooC : foo
{
//new is the default modifier
public void foo1{/*....*/}
}
overloading
public class foo{
public int foo1{/*....*/}
public int foo1(int a){/*....*/}
public int foo1(string a){/*....*/}
public int foo1(int a, string b){/*....*/}
}

Making a superclass have a static variable that's different for each subclass in c#

Without any code in the subclasses, I'd like an abstract class to have a different copy of a static variable for each subclass. In C#
abstract class ClassA
{
static string theValue;
// just to demonstrate
public string GetValue()
{
return theValue;
}
...
}
class ClassB : ClassA { }
class ClassC : ClassA { }
and (for example):
(new ClassB()).GetValue(); // returns "Banana"
(new ClassC()).GetValue(); // returns "Coconut"
My current solution is this:
abstract class ClassA
{
static Dictionary<Type, string> theValue;
public string GetValue()
{
return theValue[this.GetType()];
}
...
}
While this works fine, I'm wondering if there's a more elegant or built-in way of doing this?
This is similar to Can I have different copies of a static variable for each different type of inheriting class, but I have no control over the subclasses

There is a more elegant way. You can exploit the fact that statics in a generic base class are different for each derived class of a different type
public abstract class BaseClass<T> where T : class
{
public static int x = 6;
public int MyProperty { get => x; set => x = value; }
}
For each child class, the static int x will be unique for each unique T
Lets derive two child classes, and we use the name of the child class as the generic T in the base class.
public class ChildA: BaseClass<ChildA>
{
}
public class ChildB : BaseClass<ChildB>
{
}
Now the static MyProperty is unique for both ChildA and ChildB
var TA = new ChildA();
TA.MyProperty = 8;
var TB = new ChildB();
TB.MyProperty = 4;

While this works fine, I'm wondering if there's a more elegant or built-in way of doing this?
There isn't really a built-in way of doing this, as you're kind of violating basic OO principles here. Your base class should have no knowledge of subclasses in traditional object oriented theory.
That being said, if you must do this, your implementation is probably about as good as you're going to get, unless you can add some other info to the subclasses directly. If you need to control this, and you can't change subclasses, this will probably be your best approach.

This is a little different than what you're asking for, but perhaps accomplishes the same thing.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine((new B()).theValue);
Console.WriteLine((new C()).theValue);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public abstract class A
{
public readonly string theValue;
protected A(string s)
{
theValue = s;
}
}
public class B : A
{
public B(): base("Banana")
{
}
}
public class C : A
{
public C(): base("Coconut")
{
}
}

There's an alternative solution which might or might not be better than yours, depending on the use case:
abstract class ClassA
{
private static class InternalClass<T> {
public static string Value;
}
public string GetValue()
{
return (string)typeof(InternalClass<>)
.MakeGenericType(GetType())
.GetField("Value", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)
.GetValue(null);
}
}
This approach is used in EqualityComparer<T>.Default. Of course, it's not used for this problem. You should really consider making GetValue abstract and override it in each derived class.

What about this?
class Base {
protected static SomeObjectType myVariable;
protected void doSomething()
{
Console.WriteLine( myVariable.SomeProperty );
}
}
class AAA : Base
{
static AAA()
{
myVariable = new SomeObjectType();
myVariable.SomeProperty = "A";
}
}
class BBB : Base
{
static BBB()
{
myVariable = new SomeObjectType();
myVariable.SomeProperty = "B";
}
}
It works for me.
Would be even nicer with Interface.

Simple solution: just use word "new".
public abstract class AbstractClass
{
public static int Variable;
}
public class RealizationA : AbstractClass
{
public new static int Variable;
}
public class RealizationB : AbstractClass
{
public new static int Variable;
}
And the result:
AbstractClass.Variable = 1;
RealizationA.Variable = 2;
RealizationB.Variable = 3;
Console.WriteLine(AbstractClass.Variable); //1
Console.WriteLine(RealizationA.Variable); //2
Console.WriteLine(RealizationB.Variable); //3
or you can use property:
//in abstract class
public static int Variable {get; set;}
//in child class
public static new int Variable {get; set;}
or function (but remember to add "new" to both variable and function):
//in abstract class
protected static int Variable;
public static int GetVariable() { return Variable; }
public static void SetVariable(int v) { Variable = v; }
//in child class
protected new static int Variable;
public static new int GetVariable() { return Variable; }
public static new void SetVariable(int v) { Variable = v; }
or you can use private variables (you don't need to use "new") with functions to get and set:
//in abstract class
private static int Variable;
//get and set methods
//in child class
private static int Variable;
//get and set methods