I'm coming from a C++ background. This question has been asked before, but try as I might I cannot find the answer. Let's say I have:
string[] ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames = new string[500];
ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439] = "Hello world!";
Can I create a string that references the above (neither of these will compile):
string a = ref ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439]; // no compile
string a = &ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439]; // no compile
I do understand that strings are immutable in C#. I also understand that you cannot get the address of a managed object.
I'd like to do this:
a = "Donkey Kong"; // Now ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439] = "Donkey Kong";
I have read the Stack Overflow question Make a reference to another string in C#
which has an excellent answer, but to a slightly different question. I do NOT want to pass this parameter to a function by reference. I know how to use the "ref" keyword for passing a parameter by reference.
If the answer is "You cannot do this in C#", is there a convenient workaround?
EDIT:
Some of the answers indicate the question was unclear. Lets ask it in a different way. Say I needed to manipulate all items in the original long-named array that have prime indices. I'd like to add aliases to Array...[2], Array...[3], Array...[5], etc to a list. Then, modify the items in the list using a "for" loop (perhaps by passing the list just created to a function).
In C# the "using" keyword creates an alias to a class or namespace. It seems from the answers, that it is not possible to create an alias to a variable, however.
You could create a wrapper that keeps a reference to the underlying array AND the index of the string:
public sealed class ArrayStringReference
{
private readonly string[] _array;
private readonly int _index;
public ArrayStringReference(string[] array, int index)
{
_array = array;
_index = index;
}
public string Value
{
get
{
return _array[_index];
}
set
{
_array[_index] = value;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Value;
}
}
Then this will work:
string[] ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames = new string[500];
ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439] = "Hello world!";
var strRef = new ArrayStringReference(ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames, 439);
Console.WriteLine(ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439]); // Outputs "Hello world!"
strRef.Value = "Donkey Kong";
Console.WriteLine(ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439]); // Outputs "Donkey Kong"
You could make this more convenient to use by providing an implicit string operator so you don't have to use .Value to access the underlying string:
// Add this to class ArrayStringReference implementation
public static implicit operator string(ArrayStringReference strRef)
{
return strRef.Value;
}
Then instead of having to access the underlying string like this:
strRef.Value = "Donkey Kong";
...
string someString = strRef.Value;
You can do this:
strRef.Value = "Donkey Kong";
...
string someString = strRef; // Don't need .Value
This is just syntactic sugar, but it might make it easier to start using an ArrayStringReference in existing code. (Note that you will still need to use .Value to set the underlying string.)
The closest you can get is this:
unsafe
{
string* a = &ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439]; // no compile
}
Which gives an exception:
Cannot take the address of, get the size of, or declare a pointer to a managed type ('string')
So no, not possible...
Also read this MSDN article which explains what types can be used (blittable types).
When I do something like this in C#:
string a = "String 1";
string b = a;
a = "String 2";
Console.WriteLine(a); // String 2
Console.WriteLine(b); // String 1
The thing is, both "String 1" and "String 2" literals are created at the start of the program, and strings are always pointers: at first a references "String 1" literal and afterwards it references "String 2". If you want them to always reference the same thing, in C# you just use the same variable.
The string objects themselves are immutable in C#:
Because a string "modification" is actually a new string creation, you must use caution when you create references to strings. If you create a reference to a string, and then "modify" the original string, the reference will continue to point to the original object instead of the new object that was created when the string was modified.
When the string mutability is needed, for example, to concatenate a lot of strings faster, other classes are used, like StringBuilder.
To sum it up, what you're trying to do is impossible.
In C#, a String is an Object. Therefore String a = "Donkey Kong" says that a now have a reference to this string that is being allocated over the memory. Then all you need to do is:
ArrayOfReallyVeryLongStringNames[439] = a;
And that will copy the refrence (which you should be thinking of in C#!!!) to the location in the string.
BUT!! When you do a="new string";, a will get a new reference. See the example I made:
http://prntscr.com/3kw18v
You can only do this with unsafe mode.
You could create a wrapper
public class StringWrapper
{
public string Value {get;set;}
}
StringWrapper[] arrayOfWrappers = new StringWrapper[500];
arrayOfWrappers[439] = new StringWrapper { Value = "Hello World" };
StringWrapper a = arrayOfWrappers[439];
a.Value = "New Value";
What you are trying to do is universally discouraged, and actively prevented, in C#, where the logic should be independent of the memory model, however, refer to related SO question C# memory address and variable for some info.
EDIT 1
A more canonical approach to your actual problem in C# would be:
// using System.Linq;
string[] raw = new string[] { "alpha", "beta", "gamma", "delta" };
List<int> evenIndices = Enumerable.Range(0, raw.Length)
.Where(x => x % 2 == 0)
.ToList();
foreach (int x in evenIndices)
raw[x] = raw[x] + " (even)";
foreach (string x in raw)
Console.WriteLine(x);
/*
OUTPUT:
alpha (even)
beta
gamma (even)
delta
*/
If you really want to modify the original memory structure itself, then perhaps C++ is a more appropriate language choice for the solution.
EDIT 2
Looking around on SO, you may want to look at this answer Hidden Features of C#? to an unrelated question.
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
string[] arrayOfString = new string[500];
arrayOfString[499] = "Four Ninty Nine";
Console.WriteLine("Before Modification : {0} " , arrayOfString[499]);
string a = arrayOfString[499];
ModifyString(out arrayOfString[499]);
Console.WriteLine("after a : {0}", a);
Console.WriteLine("after arrayOfString [499]: {0}", arrayOfString[499]);
}
private void ModifyString(out string arrayItem)
{
arrayItem = "Five Hundred less one";
}
Of course you can, hehe:
var a = __makeref(array[666]);
__refvalue(a, string) = "hello";
But you would have to have a very good reason to do it this way.
Related
edit; Based on responses, I may have been unclear in my final goal. I've updated the last section.
Situation
I have a number of variables which I need to perform the same operation on. In this case, they are strings, and can at the point we reach this code have the value null, "", "Blank", or they could already have an assigned other value that I want to keep.
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(MyVar1) || "Blank".Equals(MyVar1))
MyVar1 = null;
if(String.IsNullOrEmpty(MyVar2) || "Blank".Equals(MyVar2))
MyVar2 = null;
...
if(String.IsNullOrEmpty(MyVar10) || "Blank".Equals(MyVar10))
MyVar10 = null;
Being a programmer that wants to keep my code clean and this block drives me mad, I'm looking for a way to create a list of these variables, and perform this same if statement + null assignment on each.
For an example, here's what I'd like to do:
MyVar1 = "Blank";
DreamDataStructure varList = new DreamDataStructure() { MyVar1, MyVar2, ..., MyVar10 };
foreach(ref string MyVar in varList)
{
if(String.IsNullOrEmpty(MyVar) || "Blank".Equals(MyVar))
MyVar = null;
}
Console.WriteLine(MyVar1); //Should now be null
What Doesn't Work
1) Because my variables are strings, I can't do something like this.
var myListOfVariables = new[] { &MyVar1, &MyVar2, ..., &MyVar10 };
If I could, I'd be able to foreach over them as expected. Because string is a managed type though, it cannot be passed by reference like this.
2) Similarly, if I just made a List<string> of the variables, they would be passed by value and wouldn't help my case.
3) These variables can't be wrapped in an outer object type, as they need to be used as strings in a large number of places in a legacy application. Assume that it would be too large an effort to change how they're used in every location.
Question
Is there a way to iterate over string (or other managed type) variables in a pass-by-reference way that will allow me to put the entire operation inside of a loop and reduce the duplication of code that's happening here?
The goal here is that I can use the original variables later on in my code with the updated values. MyVar1, etc, are referenced later on already by legacy code which expects them to be null or have an actual value.
If I understand your question correctly, I don't think what you want to do is possible. Please see this question: Interesting "params of ref" feature, any workarounds?
The only thing I can suggest (which I know doesn't answer your question) is creating a method to avoid duplication of your conditional logic:
void Convert(ref string text)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(text) || "Blank".Equals(text))
{
text = null;
}
}
You could create a function instead of passing references, which would also be more readable.
string Validate(string inputString)
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(inputString) || "Blank".Equals(inputString) ? null : inputString;
}
<...>
MyVar1 = Validate(MyVar1);
Update:
Now I get what you're trying to do. You have a bunch of variables, and you want to perform some sort of bulk operation on them without changing anything else. Putting them in a class isn't an option.
In that case you're really stuck operating on them one at a time. There are ways to shorten it, but you're pretty much stuck with the repetition.
I'd
create a string SanitizeString(string input) function
type x = SanitizeString(x); once for each variable
copy and paste the variable names to replace x.
It's lame, but that's about all there is.
Perhaps this would be a better approach. It ensures that the values are always sanitized. Otherwise you can't easily tell whether the values have been sanitized or not:
public class MyValues
{
private string _value1;
private string _value2;
private string _value3;
public string Value1
{
get { return _value1; }
set { _value1 = Sanitize(value); }
}
// repeat for other values
private string Sanitize(string input) =>
string.IsNullOrEmpty(input) || string.Equals("Blank", input) ? null : input;
}
That's one option. Another is to sanitize the inputs earlier. But ideally we want to ensure that a given class is always in a valid state. We wouldn't want to have an instance of a class whether the values may or may not be valid. It's better to ensure that they are always valid.
ref doesn't really factor into it. We don't need to use it often, if ever. With a value type or string we can just return a new value from a function.
If we're passing a reference type and we want to make changes to it (like setting its properties, adding items to a list) then we're already passing a reference and we don't need to specify ref.
I'd try to write methods first without using ref and only use it if you need to. You probably never will because you'll succeed at whatever you're trying to do without using ref.
Your comment mentioned that this is a legacy app and it's preferable not to modify the existing class. That leaves one more option - reflection. Not my favorite, but when you say "legacy app" I feel your pain. In that case you could do this:
public static class StringSanitizer
{
private static Dictionary<Type, IEnumerable<PropertyInfo>> _stringProperties = new Dictionary<Type, IEnumerable<PropertyInfo>>();
public static void SanitizeStringProperties<T>(T input) where T : class
{
if (!_stringProperties.ContainsKey(typeof(T)))
{
_stringProperties.Add(typeof(T), GetStringProperties(typeof(T)));
}
foreach (var property in _stringProperties[typeof(T)])
{
property.SetValue(input, Sanitize((string)property.GetValue(input)));
}
}
private static string Sanitize(string input)
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(input) || string.Equals("Blank", input) ? null : input;
}
private static IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> GetStringProperties(Type type)
{
return type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
.Where(property => property.PropertyType == typeof(string) && property.CanRead && property.CanWrite);
}
}
This will take an object, find its string properties, and sanitize them. It will store the string properties in a dictionary by type so that once it has discovered the string properties for a given type it won't have to do it again.
StringSanitizer.SanitizeStringProperties(someObject);
you can simply use a string[] and get the changes back to the caller method like this.
public Main()
{
var myVar1 = "Blank";
var myVar2 = "";
string myVar3 = null;
var myVar4 = "";
string[] dreamDataStructure = new string[] { myVar1, myVar2, myVar3, myVar4 };
}
private void ProcessStrings(string[] list)
{
for(int i = 0; i < list.Length; i++)
{
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(list[i]) || "Blank".Equals(list[i]))
list[i] = null;
}
}
I have a c# winforms .net 4 application which receives a 156 character message I then pass this message unchanged to multiple function in turn.
My question is is it inefficient to keep passing the same value as a parameter or is there a more efficient way?
so currently I have :
string code = getTheCode();
\\decode first part
string result1 = getResult1(code);
string result2 = getResult2(code);
...
value of code never changes after its initial assignment.
The answer is no. It is not inefficient to keep passing the same string as a parameter. You are just passing a reference to the string, so it is very efficient.
You could create a class with a constructor requiring you to pass your string as argument and set it as a private property. Then you could retrieve data using methods which would use this private property to calculate results.
But this is only a matter of coding style you prefer, of course (and whether you will use these methods in one or more places). For me it's more readable AND you get to make sure that code variable won't change in that instance of ResultGetter class.
public class ResultGetter
{
private readonly string _code;
public ResultGetter(string code)
{
_code = code;
}
public string GetResult1()
{
var returnValue = // do something with _code property
return returnValue;
}
public string GetResult2()
{
var returnValue = // do something with _code property
return returnValue;
}
// et cetera ad nauseam
}
And then in your main file:
var code = getTheCode();
var rg = new ResultGetter(code);
string result1 = rg.GetResult1();
string result2 = rg.GetResult2();
It may be inefficient to keep passing the same code to several methods. If you find you have to do this many times, you might want to create a class responsible for 'getting results'. Pass the ''code' in the constructor of this new class. This way you can reuse the 'code' during the lifetime of the class and you don't have to keep passing the same value as a parameter
I've just come across a block like this while browsing through legacy code :
object exeName = _connectionSettings.ApplicationName.Clone();
RandomFunction(exeName);
It seemed useless to me at first, but it made me wonder. Is there a fundamental difference between:
var copiedString = initialString;
var copiedString = initialString.Clone();
var copiedString = string.Copy(initialString);
I've created a basic unit test that seems to show there is none since it behaves the same way regardless of the method used (initial affectation of copiedString, change of the initialString, assertion of copiedString value) . Am I missing something?
Using Reflector to look at the implementation of String.Clone() reveals this:
public object Clone()
{
return this;
}
So the answer is "No, there is no difference between assigning and cloning for a string".
However, Copy() is somewhat different:
public static unsafe string Copy(string str)
{
if (str == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("str");
}
int length = str.Length;
string str2 = FastAllocateString(length);
fixed (char* chRef = &str2.m_firstChar)
{
fixed (char* chRef2 = &str.m_firstChar)
{
wstrcpy(chRef, chRef2, length);
}
}
return str2;
}
This is actually making a copy - but since strings are immutable, it's not very useful anyway.
But - and this is important - Copy() will return a DIFFERENT REFERENCE from the original string, and Clone() will return the SAME REFERENCE as the original string.
Another thing to be aware of is string interning which causes strings with identical values to share the data (and therefore have the same string reference).
For example, the following code will print "Same!":
string s1 = "Hello";
string s2 = "Hello";
if (ReferenceEquals(s1, s2))
Console.WriteLine("Same!");
But the following code will print "Not same!", even though the string values are the same:
string s1 = "Hello";
string s2 = "He";
string s3 = "llo";
string s4 = s2 + s3;
if (!ReferenceEquals(s1, s4))
Console.WriteLine("Not Same!");
We can explicitly intern s4, so that the following prints "Same!":
string s1 = "Hello";
string s2 = "He";
string s3 = "llo";
string s4 = s2 + s3;
s4 = string.Intern(s4);
if (ReferenceEquals(s1, s4))
Console.WriteLine("Same!");
String.Clone() does nothing but return the reference to the same string (see here)
But since strings in C# are immutable anyway, there's no difference between all three methods you've specified.
Since the CLR implements immutable strings, and treats strings like values, semantically, the only time it would ever be an issue in correct code is outside of the managed code sandbox.
In context of managed code, strings should be simply assigned, just like int and byte and float.
Since the CLR implements immutable strings, and treats strings like values, semantically, the only time it would ever be an issue in correct code is outside of the managed code sandbox, and even so, correct code would properly consider all aspects of CLR strings (as in 2 strings may refer to the same "value").
In context of managed code, strings should be simply assigned, just like int and byte and float.
i have the following array :
int[] myArray = {21,21,364,658,87};
and a reference to the second element like so:
int rr = myArray[1];
i want something like :
rr = 500
Console.writeLine(myArray[1]);// ---> should print 500 !
i hope you guys got my idea , i can do this easily in python like the example above.
so
how to do this in C#
my solution would probably be create property with arr[1] as its backing property
something like:
public int rr
{
set{ arr[1] = value;}
get{ return arr[1];}
}
and than rr=500; will be the same as arr[1]=500;
You could use something like this:
public static class ArrayExtensions
{
public static Action<int> CreateSetter(this int[] array, int index)
{
return (value) => array[index] = value;
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class ArrayTest
{
[Test]
public void Test()
{
int[] myArray = {21,21,364,658,87};
Action<int> rr = myArray.CreateSetter(1);
rr(500);
Assert.AreEqual(500, myArray[1]);
}
}
When you do this:
int[] myArray = {21,21,364,658,87};
int rr = myArray[1];
rr = 500;
You will only overwrite the value in rr, there is no way for you to get the actual memory address of an arrays inner elements, and thereby updating it.
My answer must therefore be:
myArray[1] = 500;
I'm trying to understand what you're trying to do, if you want to encapsulate your change in a function you could pass the reference on this way, but it's all about what you want to do with it:
public void Proc()
{
var ints = new [] { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
FunctionChangingByReference(ref ints[1]);
}
public void FunctionChangingByReference(ref int x)
{
x = 500;
}
In C# there are no pointers, only references.
(I'm lying a bit, you could use pointers if you create a unsafe context, but we don't do that in C#, and neither should you. When we code C++ we do, but that's C++, and we do it at a cost, we make the code a bit more fragile and error prone. When I code C# I try to optimize the code on a higher level than memory address shuffling. If you really need to optimize on that level you should write the code in C++ and import that code as a dll, then you have a good separation of concern, and don't forget to test drive the development!)
Simply myArray[1] = 500! You could use a property as Nahum Litvin has suggested if you specifically want a reference to a specific integer within the array.
#des answer has awaken my interest. So I tried his solution and it works as expected:
int[] numbers = new[] { 1, 2, 3 };
fixed (int* number = &numbers[0])
{
*number = 10;
}
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(", ", numbers)); // Outputs "10, 2, 3"
You have to compile it with the /unsafe option.
I hope you see that this may bring some problems.
Therefore I don't recommend this solution.
What you want is a basically pointer to a variable.
It's hard to explain the difference between "value type" (like int or struct), a reference and a pointer. I can only recommend learning C.
Here's solution that works, although it may need a lot of changes to your code.
//a class that will hold an int inside
public class myIntWrapper
{
//this is the value wrapper holds
public int theValue;
//constructor taking the value
public myIntWrapper(int argument)
{
theValue = argument;
}
//operator to convert an int into brand-new myIntWrapper class
public static implicit operator myIntWrapper(int argument)
{
return new myIntWrapper(argument);
}
//operator to convert a myIntWrapper class into an int
public static implicit operator int(myIntWrapper wrapper)
{
return wrapper.theValue;
}
}
now you can write:
//create an array -
//setting values to every item in array works
//thanks to operator myIntWrapper(int argument)
myIntWrapper[] myArray = new myIntWrapper[5]{1,2,3,4,5};
//now take a "reference"
myIntWrapper rr = myArray[1];
//change the value
rr.theValue = 500;
//from now on myArray[1].theValue is 500;
//thanks to operator int(myIntWrapper wrapper)
//you can write:
int ss = rr;//it works!
please remember to never do:
rr = 600;
because this will actually create brand new myIntWrapper, that's not "connected" anywhere.
So remember:
rr.theValue = 500;//this changes the value somewhere
rr = myArray[3];//this changes where rr is "pointing" to
Yes, it's quite complicated but I doubt it can be done any simpler without unsafe code. I'm sorry for not explaining it more. I'll answer to all questions in comments.
I have the following piece of code
List<String> l = new List<String>();
String s = "hello";
l.Add(s);
s = "world";
When I set up some breakpoints and go through the program, after executing the last line, the value in the list is still hello instead of world.
Shouldn't it equal world ? Isn't a string an object, and am I not just inserting a pointer into the list? Later on if I change the string to point to a different value ("world"), why is my list still referencing the old value?
How can I get my desired effect ?
Thanks a lot!
Strings are immutable so that won't work. When you attempt to set into it, you actually drop the pointer to the old string and create a new one under the hood.
To get the desired effect, create a class that wraps a string:
public class SortOfMutableString
{
public string Value {get;set;}
public SortOfMutableString(string s)
{
Value = s;
}
public static implicit operator string(SortOfMutableString s)
{
return s.Value;
}
public static implicit operator SortOfMutableString(string s)
{
return new SortOfMutableString(s);
}
}
And use this in your list. Then references will point to the class, but you can contain the string value inside. To make it even better, override implicit casting to and from string so you don't even need to see that you are talking to a SortOfMutableString.
Refer to Jon Skeet's answer for undoubtedly a very accurate explanation about string's in C#, I'm not even going to bother!
Alternative class names:
PseudoMutableString
ICantBelieveItsNotMutable
HappyAndReferenceableString
You're changing the s reference to refer to a different String instance.
Strings are immutable; it is impossible to change the existing instance that you added to the list.
Instead, you can create a mutable StringHolder class with a writable String property.
No, it shouldn't equal world. The value of the variable s is a reference. When you call l.Add(s), that reference is passed by value to the list. So the list now contains a reference to the string "hello".
You now change the value of s to a reference to the string "world". That doesn't change the list at all.
It's important to distinguish between three very different concepts:
A variable (which has a name and a value)
A reference (a value which allows you to navigate to an object, or null)
An object
So in particular, the list doesn't know anything about the variable s - it knows about the value which was passed into Add; that value happened to be the value of s at the time Add was called, that's all.
You may find these articles helpful:
Values and references
Parameter passing in C#
No, there are two different references involved. One called s and one that's at List[0]. When you say l.Add(s) you are setting the list reference to the same address as s, but then when you assign s to "world", then s will point to the new string, leaving List[0] pointing to the old string.
If you really want to do something like what you are asking, you'd need to wrap the string in another object that contains a string, so that s and List[0] both refer to that object, and then that object's reference to a string can change and both will see it.
public class StringWrapper
{
public string TheString { get; set; }
}
Then you can do:
var s = new StringWrapper { TheString = "Hello" };
var l = new List<StringWrapper>();
l.Add(s);
s.TheString = "World";
And now l[0].TheString will be world too. This works because in this case we are not changing the reference in List[0] or s, but they contents of the object referred to by s and List[0].
A variable is an object reference, not an object itself. s = "world" says "make s refer to the string "World") - it does not in any way affect the string "hello" that s was previously referring to. Furthermore, strings in C# are always immutable. You can, however, make the first list element (which currently refers to "hello") refer to a different string: l[0] = "world".
The other two answers here did a great job of saying why what you tried didnt' work, but you were looking for a solution for your desired effect. Wrap a string (property) inside of an object. Then you can change that string and it will be reflected in the collection.