Related
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}
Assume I have following Model structure:
class Team {
public string Name {get;set; }
public List<Player> players {get;set;}
}
class Player {
public int Age {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public Team Team {get;set;}
}
I wish to create Viewmodels for this model. However, I also would like to avoid duplicating all properties from Player in the TeamVM and vice versa (for this simple example this would be feasable, but in reality rather cumbersome).
Looking at the literature and online articles, it seems that the "Pure" way would be to create a ViewModel for each Model and to have a ViewModel only return other ViewModels and never Models. This is all fine, but my problem is: how do you create these viewmodels without getting into a recursion trap. Assume I do it like this:
public class TeamVM: ViewModel<Team> {
private ObservableCollection<PlayerVM> _players;
public TeamVM(Team t): base(t) {
_players = new ObservableCollection();
foreach (Player p in t.players) {
_players.Add(new PlayerVM(t));
}
}
public string Name {
get { return _modelElement.Name; }
set { _modelElement.Name = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
public ObservableCollection<PlayerVM> Players {
get { return _players; }
}
}
and
public class PlayerVM : ViewModel<Player> {
private TeamVM _teamVM;
public PlayerVM(Player p): base(p) {
_teamVm = new TeamVM(p.Team);
}
public int Age {
get { return _modelElement.Age; }
set { _modelElement.Age = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
public string Name {
get { return _modelElement.Name; }
set { _modelElement.Name = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
public TeamVM Team {
get { return _teamVM; }
set { _teamVm = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
}
Obviously, the above can never work, since it creates recursion: creation of a TeamVM results in the creation of PlayerVMs which in turn spawn TeamVMs again etc.
Right now, I have solved this, by adding an intermediate class as follows:
public class TeamMinimalVM: ViewModel<Team> {
public TeamVM(Team t): base(t) {
}
public string Name {
get { return _modelElement.Name; }
set { _modelElement.Name = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
}
public class TeamVM: TeamMinimalVM {
private ObservableCollection<PlayerVM> _players;
public TeamVM(Team t): base(t) {
_players = new ObservableCollection();
foreach (Player p in t.players) {
_players.Add(new PlayerVM(t));
}
}
}
And then having PlayerVM depend on TeamMinimalVM instead of TeamVM. This means that in the views, you would be able to do: {Binding Player.Team.Name} but not {Binding Player.Team.Players.Name}, which is kind of ok for me I guess since I don't think it's a great idea to do this anyway.
My question now is: is there a better/more "standard" way to do "Pure" VMs of bidirectional model elements? I do not want to clone properties of one type in the other (there are too many), nor do I want to expose Model elements directly.
Finally, the ViewModel class I use is this one (just for completeness, but it is not essential to the question I think.)
public class ModelElementViewModel<T> : ObservableObject where T : class
{
private bool _modelElementChanged;
private T _modelElement;
public ModelElementViewModel(T element)
{
_modelElement = element;
}
/// <summary>
/// The underlying model element for this viewmodel. Protected as one should not bind directly to model elements from the gui.
/// </summary>
internal T ModelElement {
get { return _modelElement; }
set {
if (_modelElement != value)
{
_modelElement = value;
ModelElementChanged = false;
NotifyAllPropertiesChanged();
}
; }
}
/// <summary>
/// Property that can be used to see if the underlying modelelement was changed through this viewmodel (note that an external
/// change to the model element is not tracked!)
/// </summary>
public bool ModelElementChanged {
private set
{
if (_modelElementChanged != value)
{
_modelElementChanged = value;
NotifyPropertyChanged();
}
}
get
{
return _modelElementChanged;
}
}
protected override void NotifyPropertyChanged([CallerMemberName] string propertyName = "")
{
ModelElementChanged = true;
base.NotifyPropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
}
Edit:
What wasn't clear from my original question is that Players are not used exclusively by teams. I want following three scenarios to work:
I want to be able to create a view for a single player that displays all player information
I want to be able to create a view for a team, displaying the information of that team and a table of all players with their statistics
I also want to be able, for example, to have a Playersbook view, which consists of a table displaying all known players with their teamname for example.
Your classes have a clear hierarchy: teams aggregate players. Teams are owners, players are owned. Therefore, when creating a player VM, you can pass team VM as a constructor argument.
The obvious limitation of this is now you can't have players without teams. Possible solutions are: enforcing players to always be owned by some team; supporting null as a team VM and setting a proper value later; creating a "null team" object and using it for team-less players.
In cases like these, when there's a clear aggregation hierarchy, I use my OwnedObservableCollection<T, TOwner>. With it, I can create create a collection _players = new OwnedObservableCollection<PlayerVM, TeamVM>(this) in a team, then just add and remove players to and from the teams by using just Add and Remove.
Lets say I have a class ApplicationState which holds the state of an application it has a collection of Globs. Each Glob must have a unique name therefore it should be somehow related to ApplicationState which is holding a list of all Globs. My thoughts were that each Glob should be capable of its own validation so I introduced GlobValidator that checks whether the name is valid by going through the list of ApplicationState Globs. So now I am wondering whether the fact of ApplicationState knowing about Globs which know about GlobValidator that knows about AplicationState will really be painful in the feature and should be changed.
public class GlobValidator
{
private readonly IEnumerable<Glob> _globs;
public GlobValidator(IEnumerable<Glob> globs )
{
_globs = globs;
}
public bool IsValidName(string name)
{
bool isThereGlobWithSameName = _globs.Any(g => g.Name == name);
return !isThereGlobWithSameName;
}
}
public class Glob
{
private readonly GlobValidator _globValidator;
private string _name;
public Glob(string name, GlobValidator globValidator)
{
_globValidator = globValidator;
Name = name;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_globValidator.IsValidName(value))
{
_name = value;
}
}
}
}
public class GlobFactory
{
private readonly GlobValidator _globValidator;
public GlobFactory(GlobValidator globValidator)
{
_globValidator = globValidator;
}
public Glob CreateGlob(string name)
{
if (!_globValidator.IsValidName(name))
{
throw new Exception("Invalid Glob Name");
}
return new Glob(name, _globValidator);
}
}
public class ApplicationState
{
public ApplicationState()
{
Globs = new List<Glob>();
}
public List<Glob> Globs { get; set; }
}
The annoyance that I have encountered with thus far is during De-serialization of ApplicationState from XML. As Example
ApplicationState
Globs
[0] Glob.Name = "John"
[1] Glob.Name = "Jeff"
Now given such state when I de-serialize I cannot give Globs the real GlobValidator which has a reference to real ApplicationState without clearing the Globs from application state, otherwise if there is glob with the same name in xml exception will be thrown by GlobValidator. I do not want to clear all the Globs from ApplicationState preparing for the case that xml is faulty in which case I want the previous ApplicationState to be untouched. So now my choice in this approach is to create a temporary reference of GlobValidator which has a reference to a temporary ApplicationState. The price for this is in the case of successful XML serialization I will need to go through and reset the GlobValidator reference on each Glob to reference the real validator, this does not sound like a bad tradeoff to me for having ability of Globs validating themselves.
Am I making a mistake trying to have the Glob being able to validate themselves? Should I be creating some sort of a wrapper around Glob that does the validation using the ApplicationState? Or does this approach sound sane?
P.S. I am using WPF so Globs implement INotifyPropertyChanged and ApplicationState has a list of ObservableCollection of `Glob's
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
I want to create something like this, but this is won't work. it's just an example to demonstrate my goal as it's pretty common creating proprties for string and int and even T but I've never seen a List property
Is it even possible do such a thing, creating a property for type List ?
EDIT
I have a normal class that has normal properties (string properties, int properties, etc) but I have this property that stores user options, So on the presentation layer I had to convert them into a string so I could be able to store them in the Object. Now is it possible to have a property of type List to store the multivalues in a better and clean way, instead of converting information into one string and then split it and again join it! Thanks Again =D
EDIT2
private List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> _settings;
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings
{
get { return _settings; }
set { _settings = value; }
}
I used the exact code you posted but the property still won't appear in the object's instance, so I tried adding code in the get and set (I wonder why you left them empty or does it means something?) and also added a private variable in the class but still it doesn't appear in the properties of the object's instance!
I hope you could provide the exact code to implement this property and a simple code that assigns or retrieves from/to an instance of this class object
It's the first time to even hear about this KeyValuePair and all the tutorials are pretty simple and not for my case, sorry!
The Last Edit: After a lot of researching and the help of Mark Avenius I found the perfect answer. hope everyone can benefit from this.
NOW! HOW TO CREATE A PROPERTY FOR A LIST :
The Options Class
Public Class Options
{
private string id;
private int option;
public int ID
{
get { return id; }
set { id= value; }
}
public string Option
{
get { return option; }
set { option = value; }
}
}
The Users Class
public class Users
{
private int userId;
private string pass;
private List<Options> userOptions = new List<Options>();
public int ID
{
get { return userId; }
set { user = userId; }
}
public string Pass
{
get { return pass; }
set { pass = value; }
}
public List<Options> OptionsList
{
get { return userOptions; }
set { userOptions = value; }
}
}
The Presentation Layer
Users newUser = new Users ();
Options userOption = new Options ();
userOption.ID = int.Parse(txtBxID.Text);
userOption.Option = txtBxOption.Text;
Item.Options.Add(userOption);
T must be defined within the scope in which you are working. Therefore, what you have posted will work if your class is generic on T:
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
}
Otherwise, you have to use a defined type.
EDIT: Per #lKashef's request, following is how to have a List property:
private List<int> newList;
public List<int> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
This can go within a non-generic class.
Edit 2:
In response to your second question (in your edit), I would not recommend using a list for this type of data handling (if I am understanding you correctly). I would put the user settings in their own class (or struct, if you wish) and have a property of this type on your original class:
public class UserSettings
{
string FirstName { get; set; }
string LastName { get; set; }
// etc.
}
public class MyClass
{
string MyClassProperty1 { get; set; }
// etc.
UserSettings MySettings { get; set; }
}
This way, you have named properties that you can reference instead of an arbitrary index in a list. For example, you can reference MySettings.FirstName as opposed to MySettingsList[0].
Let me know if you have any further questions.
EDIT 3:
For the question in the comments, your property would be like this:
public class MyClass
{
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings { get; set; }
}
EDIT 4: Based on the question's edit 2, following is how I would use this:
public class MyClass
{
// note that this type of property declaration is called an "Automatic Property" and
// it means the same thing as you had written (the private backing variable is used behind the scenes, but you don't see it)
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string> MySettings { get; set; }
}
public class MyConsumingClass
{
public void MyMethod
{
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.MySettings = new List<KeyValuePair<string, string>>();
myClass.MySettings.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("SomeKeyValue", "SomeValue"));
// etc.
}
}
You mentioned that "the property still won't appear in the object's instance," and I am not sure what you mean. Does this property not appear in IntelliSense? Are you sure that you have created an instance of MyClass (like myClass.MySettings above), or are you trying to access it like a static property (like MyClass.MySettings)?
Simple and effective alternative:
public class ClassName
{
public List<dynamic> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
or
public class ClassName
{
public List<object> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
For differences see this post: List<Object> vs List<dynamic>
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> list;
public List<T> MyList { get { return list; } set { list = value; } }
}
Then you can do something like
MyClass<int> instance1 = new MyClass<int>();
List<int> integers = instance1.MyList;
MyClass<Person> instance2 = new MyClass<Person>();
IEnumerable<Person> persons = instance2.MyList;
You could do this but the T generic parameter needs to be declared at the containing class:
public class Foo<T>
{
public List<T> NewList { get; set; }
}
It's possible to have a property of type List<T> but your class needs to be passed the T too.
public class ClassName<T>
{
public List<T> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Either specify the type of T, or if you want to make it generic, you'll need to make the parent class generic.
public class MyClass<T>
{
etc
How do you give a C# auto-property an initial value?
I either use the constructor, or revert to the old syntax.
Using the Constructor:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
Name = "Initial Name";
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Using normal property syntax (with an initial value)
private string name = "Initial Name";
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Is there a better way?
In C# 5 and earlier, to give auto implemented properties an initial value, you have to do it in a constructor.
Since C# 6.0, you can specify initial value in-line. The syntax is:
public int X { get; set; } = x; // C# 6 or higher
DefaultValueAttribute is intended to be used by the VS designer (or any other consumer) to specify a default value, not an initial value. (Even if in designed object, initial value is the default value).
At compile time DefaultValueAttribute will not impact the generated IL and it will not be read to initialize the property to that value (see DefaultValue attribute is not working with my Auto Property).
Example of attributes that impact the IL are ThreadStaticAttribute, CallerMemberNameAttribute, ...
Edited on 1/2/15
C# 6 :
With C# 6 you can initialize auto-properties directly (finally!), there are now other answers that describe that.
C# 5 and below:
Though the intended use of the attribute is not to actually set the values of the properties, you can use reflection to always set them anyway...
public class DefaultValuesTest
{
public DefaultValuesTest()
{
foreach (PropertyDescriptor property in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(this))
{
DefaultValueAttribute myAttribute = (DefaultValueAttribute)property.Attributes[typeof(DefaultValueAttribute)];
if (myAttribute != null)
{
property.SetValue(this, myAttribute.Value);
}
}
}
public void DoTest()
{
var db = DefaultValueBool;
var ds = DefaultValueString;
var di = DefaultValueInt;
}
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool DefaultValueBool { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("Good")]
public string DefaultValueString { get; set; }
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(27)]
public int DefaultValueInt { get; set; }
}
When you inline an initial value for a variable it will be done implicitly in the constructor anyway.
I would argue that this syntax was best practice in C# up to 5:
class Person
{
public Person()
{
//do anything before variable assignment
//assign initial values
Name = "Default Name";
//do anything after variable assignment
}
public string Name { get; set; }
}
As this gives you clear control of the order values are assigned.
As of C#6 there is a new way:
public string Name { get; set; } = "Default Name";
Sometimes I use this, if I don't want it to be actually set and persisted in my db:
class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(_name) ? "Default Name" : _name;
}
set { _name = value; }
}
}
Obviously if it's not a string then I might make the object nullable ( double?, int? ) and check if it's null, return a default, or return the value it's set to.
Then I can make a check in my repository to see if it's my default and not persist, or make a backdoor check in to see the true status of the backing value, before saving.
In C# 6.0 this is a breeze!
You can do it in the Class declaration itself, in the property declaration statements.
public class Coordinate
{
public int X { get; set; } = 34; // get or set auto-property with initializer
public int Y { get; } = 89; // read-only auto-property with initializer
public int Z { get; } // read-only auto-property with no initializer
// so it has to be initialized from constructor
public Coordinate() // .ctor()
{
Z = 42;
}
}
Starting with C# 6.0, We can assign default value to auto-implemented properties.
public string Name { get; set; } = "Some Name";
We can also create read-only auto implemented property like:
public string Name { get; } = "Some Name";
See: C# 6: First reactions , Initializers for automatically implemented properties - By Jon Skeet
In Version of C# (6.0) & greater, you can do :
For Readonly properties
public int ReadOnlyProp => 2;
For both Writable & Readable properties
public string PropTest { get; set; } = "test";
In current Version of C# (7.0), you can do : (The snippet rather displays how you can use expression bodied get/set accessors to make is more compact when using with backing fields)
private string label = "Default Value";
// Expression-bodied get / set accessors.
public string Label
{
get => label;
set => this.label = value;
}
In C# 9.0 was added support of init keyword - very useful and extremly sophisticated way for declaration read-only auto-properties:
Declare:
class Person
{
public string Name { get; init; } = "Anonymous user";
}
~Enjoy~ Use:
// 1. Person with default name
var anonymous = new Person();
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {anonymous.Name}!");
// > Hello, Anonymous user!
// 2. Person with assigned value
var me = new Person { Name = "#codez0mb1e"};
Console.WriteLine($"Hello, {me.Name}!");
// > Hello, #codez0mb1e!
// 3. Attempt to re-assignment Name
me.Name = "My fake";
// > Compilation error: Init-only property can only be assigned in an object initializer
In addition to the answer already accepted, for the scenario when you want to define a default property as a function of other properties you can use expression body notation on C#6.0 (and higher) for even more elegant and concise constructs like:
public class Person{
public string FullName => $"{First} {Last}"; // expression body notation
public string First { get; set; } = "First";
public string Last { get; set; } = "Last";
}
You can use the above in the following fashion
var p = new Person();
p.FullName; // First Last
p.First = "Jon";
p.Last = "Snow";
p.FullName; // Jon Snow
In order to be able to use the above "=>" notation, the property must be read only, and you do not use the get accessor keyword.
Details on MSDN
In C# 6 and above you can simply use the syntax:
public object Foo { get; set; } = bar;
Note that to have a readonly property simply omit the set, as so:
public object Foo { get; } = bar;
You can also assign readonly auto-properties from the constructor.
Prior to this I responded as below.
I'd avoid adding a default to the constructor; leave that for dynamic assignments and avoid having two points at which the variable is assigned (i.e. the type default and in the constructor). Typically I'd simply write a normal property in such cases.
One other option is to do what ASP.Net does and define defaults via an attribute:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.defaultvalueattribute.aspx
My solution is to use a custom attribute that provides default value property initialization by constant or using property type initializer.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class InstanceAttribute : Attribute
{
public bool IsConstructorCall { get; private set; }
public object[] Values { get; private set; }
public InstanceAttribute() : this(true) { }
public InstanceAttribute(object value) : this(false, value) { }
public InstanceAttribute(bool isConstructorCall, params object[] values)
{
IsConstructorCall = isConstructorCall;
Values = values ?? new object[0];
}
}
To use this attribute it's necessary to inherit a class from special base class-initializer or use a static helper method:
public abstract class DefaultValueInitializer
{
protected DefaultValueInitializer()
{
InitializeDefaultValues(this);
}
public static void InitializeDefaultValues(object obj)
{
var props = from prop in obj.GetType().GetProperties()
let attrs = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstanceAttribute), false)
where attrs.Any()
select new { Property = prop, Attr = ((InstanceAttribute)attrs.First()) };
foreach (var pair in props)
{
object value = !pair.Attr.IsConstructorCall && pair.Attr.Values.Length > 0
? pair.Attr.Values[0]
: Activator.CreateInstance(pair.Property.PropertyType, pair.Attr.Values);
pair.Property.SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
}
Usage example:
public class Simple : DefaultValueInitializer
{
[Instance("StringValue")]
public string StringValue { get; set; }
[Instance]
public List<string> Items { get; set; }
[Instance(true, 3,4)]
public Point Point { get; set; }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Simple
{
Items = {"Item1"}
};
Console.WriteLine(obj.Items[0]);
Console.WriteLine(obj.Point);
Console.WriteLine(obj.StringValue);
}
Output:
Item1
(X=3,Y=4)
StringValue
little complete sample:
using System.ComponentModel;
private bool bShowGroup ;
[Description("Show the group table"), Category("Sea"),DefaultValue(true)]
public bool ShowGroup
{
get { return bShowGroup; }
set { bShowGroup = value; }
}
You can simple put like this
public sealed class Employee
{
public int Id { get; set; } = 101;
}
In the constructor. The constructor's purpose is to initialized it's data members.
private string name;
public string Name
{
get
{
if(name == null)
{
name = "Default Name";
}
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
Have you tried using the DefaultValueAttribute or ShouldSerialize and Reset methods in conjunction with the constructor? I feel like one of these two methods is necessary if you're making a class that might show up on the designer surface or in a property grid.
Use the constructor because "When the constructor is finished, Construction should be finished". properties are like states your classes hold, if you had to initialize a default state, you would do that in your constructor.
To clarify, yes, you need to set default values in the constructor for class derived objects. You will need to ensure the constructor exists with the proper access modifier for construction where used. If the object is not instantiated, e.g. it has no constructor (e.g. static methods) then the default value can be set by the field. The reasoning here is that the object itself will be created only once and you do not instantiate it.
#Darren Kopp - good answer, clean, and correct. And to reiterate, you CAN write constructors for Abstract methods. You just need to access them from the base class when writing the constructor:
Constructor at Base Class:
public BaseClassAbstract()
{
this.PropertyName = "Default Name";
}
Constructor at Derived / Concrete / Sub-Class:
public SubClass() : base() { }
The point here is that the instance variable drawn from the base class may bury your base field name. Setting the current instantiated object value using "this." will allow you to correctly form your object with respect to the current instance and required permission levels (access modifiers) where you are instantiating it.
public Class ClassName{
public int PropName{get;set;}
public ClassName{
PropName=0; //Default Value
}
}
This is old now, and my position has changed. I'm leaving the original answer for posterity only.
Personally, I don't see the point of making it a property at all if you're not going to do anything at all beyond the auto-property. Just leave it as a field. The encapsulation benefit for these item are just red herrings, because there's nothing behind them to encapsulate. If you ever need to change the underlying implementation you're still free to refactor them as properties without breaking any dependent code.
Hmm... maybe this will be the subject of it's own question later
class Person
{
/// Gets/sets a value indicating whether auto
/// save of review layer is enabled or not
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue(true)]
public bool AutoSaveReviewLayer { get; set; }
}
I know this is an old question, but it came up when I was looking for how to have a default value that gets inherited with the option to override, I came up with
//base class
public class Car
{
public virtual string FuelUnits
{
get { return "gasoline in gallons"; }
protected set { }
}
}
//derived
public class Tesla : Car
{
public override string FuelUnits => "ampere hour";
}
I think this would do it for ya givng SomeFlag a default of false.
private bool _SomeFlagSet = false;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
SomeFlag = false;
return SomeFlag;
}
set
{
if (!_SomeFlagSet)
_SomeFlagSet = true;
SomeFlag = value;
}
}