We Keep Coding

C# Class array?

The following seems to be a class array?
Chemical.ChemicalName[IndexNumber]
It seems that there are several other fields associated with Chemical, such as Cost, Quantity, SupplierName (Chemical.Cost etc).
I was wondering what this type of variable is called? A class array? I've been searching online about arrays and can't seem to find any documentation on this.
And secondly, how do I declare such a variable?

Assuming it's a property, not an array , so you cannot access using an index,
public class Chemical
{
// Field
public string ChemicalName;
...etc
}
if chemical is an array , then you can declare like this,
Chemical[] Chemicals = new Chemical[200];
Then you can access the particular element using the index,
Chemicals[IndexNumber].ChemicalName
EDIT
If you want to have ChemicalName as a array inside the class,
public class Chemical{
public ChemicalName[] ChemicalNames = new ChemicalName[5];
]
you can access like this,
Chemical[] Chemicals = new Chemical[200];
c[index].ChemicalNames[index];

Variable would look something like that
public class Chemical{
public ChemicalName[] ChemicalNames = new ChemicalName[5];
...
}
So you can invoke it like that
Chemical c = new Chemical();
c.ChemicalNames[index];
OR, you can also declare the Array as static so you wont need an intance of the class to get the array e.g.
public class Chemical{
public static ChemicalName[] ChemicalNames = new ChemicalName[5];
...
}
to call a static, simply use class.variable/method name
Chemical.ChemicalNames[index];

It is a class property that implements an indexer. Usually this is an array, but it can be something else as long as it implements this[int index].
You can declare one by declaring it as a class property. For example,
class Book
{
public Book(int numPages)
{
Pages = new Page[numPages];
}
public Page[] Pages {get;}
}
You can then instantiate an instance and access a page.
Book myBook = new Book(100);
myBook.Pages[50]=new Page("Hi, welcome to Page 50");
Console.Write(myBook.Pages[50].GetText());

Let me consider this statement from the question Chemical.ChemicalName[IndexNumber], We can consider Chemical as a class or as an object of some other class. If it is a class means the ChemicalName will be a static.
Then comes the ChemicalName definitely it will be a collection(List/Array or something like that) or even an object of a class which having an indexer.
Case 1: consider Chemical is class and ChemicalName is a List of string So the Definition will be :
public class Chemical
{
public static List<string> ChemicalNames = new List<string>(){"name1","name 2"};
}
So that you can access a single name like the following:
string someChemicalName=Chemical.ChemicalNames[0]; // will be name1
Case 2: consider Chemical is an object of a class and ChemicalName is a List of string So the Definition will be :
public class Chemicals
{
public List<string> ChemicalNames;
}
Then you can access create the Chemical by using the following code:
Chemicals Chemical= new Chemicals();
Chemical.ChemicalNames=new List<string>(){"name1","name 2"};
Here also you can workout your statement like this
string someChemicalName=Chemical.ChemicalNames[0]; // will be name1

Let's parse Chemical.ChemicalName[IndexNumber]:
IndexNumber is probably some value of one of integer types - let guess int IndexNumber. Other options could be enum or any type as you can use indexer with any arguments.
[IndexNumber] is indexing something. Since there is no
Static Indexers? in C# it means ChemicalName can't be class name of static class like following
namespace Chemical {
static class ChemicalName{}
}
so it means that ChemicalName is either property or field of Chemical.
Now for Chemical there are more options
it could be static class with ChemicalName as static property:
static class Chemical{
public static string[] ChemicalName = new[] {"Food", "Poison"};
}
it could be local variable of some type that has ChemicalName as instance property:
class ChemicalType{
public string[] ChemicalName = new[] {"Food", "Poison"};
}
...
void MyMethod()
{
// implicitly typed, same as `ChemicalType Chemical`
var Chemical = new ChemicalType();
int IndexNumber = 1;
Console.WriteLine(Chemical.ChemicalName[IndexNumber]);
}
it could be field or property of your class (with any accessibility as to get Checmical.ChemicalName syntax to work for property it need to be used inside a method of your class)
class MyClass
{
// one of any combination:
// private field
ChemicalType Chemical = new ChemicalType();
// or protected automatic property
protected ChemicalType Chemical {get;set;}
// or public property
ChemicalType _chemical;
public ChemicalType Chemical {get {return _chemical;}}
...
}
Finally let's see what ChemicalName could be: the only requirement is to allow indexer by some type. including int. This gives very broad set of types as many of built in types support indexing.
array is most common one string[] ChemicalName
just string - somewhat strange given name of variable, but possible - string ChemicalName. When indexing will give single char result
List<string>
dictionary, this option allows broader range of indexing - i.e. by strings Dictionary<string,string> ChemicalName.
custom type implementing similar to public string this[int i] (or any other return type).

Would reflection be the best method of searching for a value of a specific property in a list of Objects?

I have a Class with the following:
public class TestClass {
string Account1 {get;set;}
string Account2 {get;set;}
string Account3 {get;set;}
}
What I would like is to be able to have a method that is similar to the following:
public TestClass[] GetTestClass(string value, string AccountName)
where i can pass in a value say "John" and the AccountName would be "Account1"
and it will go through a list of TestClass and return an array or list of TestClass objects where there exists a value "John" in the Property "Account1"
Is there a better method of doing this or any thoughts would help.
Note: This is a model based of a SQL Table

You can use the reflection to get what you want, Your method will look like this,
public List<TestClass> GetTestClass(string value, string AccountName)
{
foreach(TestClass test in yourListOfTestClass)
{
if (test.GetType().GetProperty(AccountName).GetValue(test, null).Equals(value))
listToReturn.Add(test);
}
return listToReturn
}
Note - Code is not tested. Might have synatx error.

You can send in a method for accessing the property instead of the property name:
public TestClass[] GetTestClass(string value, Func<TestClass, string> getAccountName) {
return accounts.Where(x => getAccountName(x) == value).ToArray();
}
Usage:
TestClass[] johnsAccounts = GetTestClass("John", a => a.Account1);
Or simply use it directly:
TestClass[] johnsAccounts = accounts.Where(a => a.Account1 == "John").ToArray();

Is there a better method of doing this or any thoughts would help.
You can use List of strings instead of multiple string variables as you are returning array from GetTestClass. It will keep it simple as well.
public class TestClass
{
List<string> Accounts = new List<string>();
}
Now you will only pass the value to method. Using the LinQ will filter out the desired string list using Where.
public List<string> GetTestClass(string value)
{
return Accounts.Where(account => account == value).ToList();
}
Edit The OP want two things AccountName and the Name, this would require to have a account class instead of string.
class Account
{
string AccountName { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
public class TestClass
{
List<Account> Accounts = new List<Account>();
}
public Account GetTestClass(Account account)
{
return Accounts.Where(account => a.AccountName == account.AccountName && a.Name == account.Name).FirstOrDefault();
}

Yes you can do this.
Take a look into Reflection. This should get you started.
Example:
public TestClass[] GetTestClass(string value, string AccountName)
{
var propertyInfo = typeof(TestClass).GetProperty(AccountName);
var list = new List<TestClass>();
foreach(var tc in [YOUR_OBJECTS])
{
if(propertyInfo.GetValue(tc, null) == value)
{
list.add(tc);
}
}
return list.ToArray();
}

Well, you can achieve that using Reflection. Though, I don't think I would do that this way, since there are other ways to implement what you want differently.
A better way in my opinion would be to create a type-safe enum that would do that. In the members of the type-safe enum, you could specify an action that would run against a 'TestClass' object.
You would be able to call 'GetTestClass' in this way:
var accounts1 = GetTestClass(testClassesCollection, "john", TestProperties.Account1);
var accounts2 = GetTestClass(testClassesCollection, "john", TestProperties.Account2);
var accounts3 = GetTestClass(testClassesCollection, "john", TestProperties.Account3);
Where 'testClassesColleciton' is the collection of 'TestClass' that you have. You could remove this argument if the method is an object member.
The type-safe enum is implemented this way:
public sealed class TestProperties
{
public static readonly TestProperties Account1 = new TestProperties((t, name) => t.Account1 == name);
public static readonly TestProperties Account2 = new TestProperties((t, name) => t.Account2 == name);
public static readonly TestProperties Account3 = new TestProperties((t, name) => t.Account3 == name);
private Func<TestClass, string, bool> _checkFunc;
private TestProperties(Func<TestClass, string, bool> func)
{
_checkFunc = func;
}
public bool IsApplicable(TestClass test, string name)
{
return _checkFunc(test, name);
}
}
Then, you can implement the GetTestClass this way:
public TestClass[] GetTestClass(IEnumerable<TestClass> testClasses, string value, TestProperties property)
{
return testClasses.Where( t => property.IsApplicable(t)).ToArray();
}
I wouldn't use reflection because of it's performance overhead and it's maintenance danger. With a plain simple reflection, we will pass the property's name as a string parameter. What would happen if somebody has changed the property's name in the class? Even with Visual Studio refactoring (ctrl + R, R), the string parameter value will not be updated. Since the code will compile normally, the bug will be discovered only at run-time.
I agree with #Rouby that a plain simple reflection will be faster to develop than the type-safe enum way that I have suggested. Though, personally, I don't think that it will be that much cheaper (development-cost wise) and I also think that the potentially dangerous scenario that I talked about earlier (regarding refactoring) would have a bigger development-cost penalty, specially, when it is a legacy/old code.

What's the return type of an anonymous class

I have a class that used to have a string return type. Now I find I need to return more than a string. I was thinking to return something like below:
public string Test()
{
return ( new { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" } );
}
Is this even possible and if so then what would be the return type? I know it's not string ..

As others have said, the best thing to do here is to make a nominal type. I would suggest that the nominal type have the same characteristics as an anonymous type; that is, you should consider making the type immutable and consider making it exhibit value equality.
It is possible to return an anonymous type as object and then use the instance returned elsewhere using a variety of sneaky techniques. You can cast the object to "dynamic" (in C# 4) and then use the properties of the anonymous type, but this is slow and lacks compile-time type checking.
You can also use the "cast by example" trick, which does get you compile-time type checking. However, that trick only works when the anonymous source object and the anonymous example object come from the same assembly.
static T CastByExample<T>(object source, T example) where T : class
{
return source as T;
}
static object ReturnsAnonymous() { return new { X = 123 }; }
static void DoIt()
{
object obj = ReturnsAnonymous();
var example = new { X = 0 };
var anon = CastByExample(obj, example);
Console.WriteLine(anon.X); // 123
}
See how sneaky that is? We use method type inference and local variable type inference to tell the compiler "these two things are the same type". This lets you export an anonymous type as object and cast it back to anonymous type.
But you probably should not do this; if you're resorting to such sneaky tricks then you should simply be defining a nominal type in the first place. Also, like I said, the trick only works if the example and the source objects were created in code in the same assembly; two "identical" anonymous types in two different assemblies do not unify to be the same type.

The object that you return does have a class, but it's anonymous so you can't specify it in the code. You just have to return it as an object reference:
public object Test() {
return new { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" };
}
Note that the anonymous type is unknown outside the scope of the method, so reflection is the only way to access its properties.
If you want to be able to use the returned object conveniently, you should declare a class:
public class TestResult
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public TestResult Test() {
return new TestResult() { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" };
}
Another alternative is to use an existing class, if it fits your purpose. A KeyValuePair is close to what you use, but then the properties will of course be named Key and Value instead of ID and Name:
public KeyValuePair<int, string> Test() {
return new KeyValuePair<int, string>(5, "Dave");
}

This isn't possible as the anonymous class is only valid within the current context. If you need to return an object then you'll need to create a real class.
I'm assuming you left string as the return type by accident.

Anonymous type are class type that are derived directly from object.
You can return it from method as object as return type.
Have a look at this.

No, it's not possible. Your options are:
Define a real class for the return value,
Use System.Tuple, or
Use out parameters (probably the least good option).

You can make a struct (or class) for this.
public struct IdAndName
{
public int Id;
public string Name;
public IdAndName(int id, string name)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
}
}
You could also use a Tuple<T1, T2>, (but that's not recommended as the properties aren't named.

class NewString
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public NewString Test()
{
return ( new NewString() { ID = 5, Name = "Dave" } );
}
:)

What type is "new { id = 0 }" in C#?

I'm using var abc = new { id = 0 }; in my C# code without knowing what type it exactly is!
Is is simply called an object? Is it a particular type of object?
I want to know coz I don't know how to add fields to this kind of object
Quick example:
I have var abc = new { id = 0 }; and I want to add to abc the field name = "david"

It is an anonymous type, that is, it does not have a type that you can use in code (though the compiler generates one).
MSDN says:
The type name is generated by the compiler and is not available at the source code level.
If you want to add a property, you can simply do so:
var abc = new { id = 0, name = "david" };

It creates anonymous class object with one field called id. Look on msdn for details. Once you create object it cannot be extended.
This what this class looks like when open with .net Reflector
[CompilerGenerated, DebuggerDisplay(#"\{ id = {id} }", Type="<Anonymous Type>")]
internal sealed class <>f__AnonymousType0<<id>j__TPar>
{
// Fields
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)]
private readonly <id>j__TPar <id>i__Field;
// Methods
[DebuggerHidden]
public <>f__AnonymousType0(<id>j__TPar id);
[DebuggerHidden]
public override bool Equals(object value);
[DebuggerHidden]
public override int GetHashCode();
[DebuggerHidden]
public override string ToString();
// Properties
public <id>j__TPar id { get; }
}
So its compiled to regular class the basic difference is that it cannot be used outside of method scope.

Would .NET benefit from "named anonymous" types?

Consider this:
var me = new { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Smith" };
This is fine as we can then do this:
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", me.FirstName, me.LastName);
However we can't do this:
public T GetMe()
{
return new { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Smith" };
}
because we don't know the type of T.
We could do this:
public object GetMe()
{
return new { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Smith" };
}
but then we'd have to inspect the properties of the object using reflection in order to access them:
var p = new Prog();
object o = p.GetMe();
Type t = o.GetType();
foreach (var prop in t.GetProperties())
{
Console.WriteLine(prop.Name + ": " + prop.GetValue(o, null));
}
However what about if we could name an anonymous type as we define it? Of course it would no longer be anonymous, however it would be more succinct and maintainable than a normal class definition.
Consider this:
public Person GetMe()
{
return new public class Person { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Smith" };
}
The benefit being it would then be possible to return the result of a complicated Linq query from a method without having to define the class explicitly.
Consider this relatively complex Linq query:
List<int> list = new List<int>();
var query = from number in list
select
new
{
Number = number,
Square = number*number,
Absolute = Math.Abs(number),
Range = Enumerable.Range(0, number)
};
Instead of defining a class like so:
public class MyNumbers
{
public int Number { get; set; }
public int Square { get; set; }
public int Absolute { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<int> Range { get; set; }
}
in order to return the query variable from a method we could instead just do this:
List<int> list = new List<int>();
return from number in list
select new public class MyNumbers
{
Number = number,
Square = number*number,
Absolute = Math.Abs(number),
Range = Enumerable.Range(0, number)
};

Actually, there's a "hack" that you can do to get an anonymous type back from a method. Consider this:
public object MyMethod()
{
var myNewObject = new
{
stringProperty = "Hello, World!",
intProperty = 1337,
boolProperty = false
};
return myNewObject;
}
public T Cast<T>(object obj, T type)
{
return (T)obj;
}
You can now do this:
var obj = MyMethod();
var myNewObj = Cast(obj, new { stringProperty = "", intProperty = 0, boolProperty = false });
The myNewObj will now be an object of the same Type as the anonymous type.

The language feature you need is:
public var GetMe()
{
return new { FirstName = "John", LastName = "Smith" };
}
That is, var would be valid as a method return type, and the compiler would infer the actual type from whatever is returned. You would then have to do this at the call site:
var me = GetMe();
Any two anonymous types with members of the same type would be the same type, so if you wrote other functions returning the same pattern, they would have the same type. For any types A and B where B has a subset of the members of A, then A is assignment-compatible with B (B is like a base class of A). If you wrote:
public var GetMeFrom(var names)
{
return new { FirstName = names["First"], LastName = names["Last"] };
}
The compiler would effectively define this as a generic method with two type parameters, T1 being the type of names and T2 being the type returned by the indexer on T1 that accepts a string. T1 would be constrained so that it must have an indexer that accepts a string. And at the call site you would just pass anything that had an indexer that accepted a string and returned any type you like, and that would determine the type of FirstName and LastName in the type returned by GetMeFrom.
So type inference would figure all this out for you, automatically capturing whatever type constraints are discoverable from the code.

IMHO the root problem is nothing to do with anonymous types, but that declaring a class is too verbose.
Option 1:
If you could declare a class like this:
public class MyClass
{ properties={ int Number, int Square, int Absolute, IEnumerable<int> Range } }
or some other similarly quick way (like the tuple example) then you wouldn't feel the need to do hacky things with anonymous types just to save some code.
When 'compiler as a service' arrives in C#5, hopefully they'll do a good job of integrating it and we'll be able to use metaprogramming to solve these kinds of problems cleanly. Party like it's 1958!
Option 2:
Alternatively, in C#4, you could just pass an anonymous type around as dynamic and avoid all the casting. Of course this opens you up to runtime errors if you rename a variable, etc.
Option 3:
If C# would implement generics in the same way as C++, then you could pass the anonymous type into a method, and so long as it had the right members, it would just compile. You'd get all the benefits of static type safety, and none of the downsides. Every time I have to type where T : ISomething in C# I get annoyed that they didn't do this!

What you are describing (named anonymous types) are basically "tuple types".
I think they would be a nice addition to C#.
If I were designing such a feature for C#, I would expose it using syntax like this:
tuple<int x, int y>
so that you could do:
public tuple<int x, int y> GetStuff()
{
}
I would then change the definition of anonymous types, so that:
new { x = 2, y = 2}
had tuple<int x, int y> as it's type, rather than an anonymous type.
Getting this to work with the current CLR is a little tricky, because once you can name an anonymous type in public signatures you need to be able to unify them across separately compiled assemblies. It can be accomplished by embedding a "module constructor" inside any assembly that uses a tuple type. See this post for an example.
The only downside to that approach is that it doesn't respect the CLR's "lazy" model for type generation. That means that assemblies that use many distinct tuple types might experience slightly slower load types. A better approach would be to add support for tuple types directly to the CLR.
But, apart from changing the CLR, I think the module constructor approach is the best way of doing something like this.

I would love this feature, there have been many times I've wanted this.
A good example is processing XML. You parse them get back an object, but then you need to make a concrete version of the object to send back to a caller. Many times you get XML that changes quite considerably and requires you make many classes to handle it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could just build the object using LinqToXml as a var, then just return that?

I think this would be a nice compiler magic for tuples:
Creating a tuple:
(int, string, Person) tuple = (8, "hello", new Person());
equivalent to:
Tuple<int,string,Person> tuple = new Tuple<int,string,Person>(8 ,"hello", new Person());
In a function:
public (int, string, Person) GetTuple(){
return ...
}
Getting values:
int number = tuple[1];
string text = tuple[2];
Person person = tuple[3];

Could you create an Interface with the properties FirstName and LastName and use that?