We Keep Coding

Property with getter only vs. with getter and private setter

Are these the same?
public string MyProp { get; }
vs.
public string MyProp { get; private set; }
I mean in both versions the property can be set in its own class but is readonly for other classes?

public string MyProp { get; } - This is introduced in C# 6.0. And such properties are called read-only auto-properties. Assignments to such members can only occur as part of the declaration or in a constructor in the same class. You can read detailed explanation about it in that MSDN article or in Jon Skeet blog. As explained in that article, such property solves four problem automatically:
A read-only-defined backing field
Initialization of the backing field from within the constructor
Explicit implementation of the property (rather than using an auto-property)
An explicit getter implementation that returns the backing field
public string MyProp { get; private set; } - This means that the property is read-only in the outside of this class, but you can change it's value inside of this class.
By the way, you can set read-only auto-properties value using new auto-initialize syntax which is again introduced in C# 6.0:
public string MyProp { get; } = "You cannot change me";
It is equal to this code for the previous versions of C#:
private readonly string myProp = "You cannot change me"
public string MyProp { get { return myProp ; } }
Or, this in C# 6.0:
public string MyProp { get; }
protected MyClass(string myProp, ...)
{
this.MyProp = myProp;
...
}
is equal to this in the previous versions:
private readonly string myProp;
public string MyProp { get { return myProp; } }
protected MyClass(string myProp, ...)
{
this.myProp = myProp;
...
}

In the first one no-one can set the properties value, in the second case at least the class itself can change it. Having said this only the first one is a real "read-only"-property.
However consider combining it with a readonly-backend-field:
private readonly string field;
public string MyProp { get { return this.field; } }
Now any attemp to change the value of either the property itself or the backing-field will fail. This is identical to the syntax introduced in C#6 where the baking-field is automatically added to be reradonly:
public string MyProp { get; }
However as you already assumed for other classes both properties work same, meaning are not ment to be modified in any way.

In C# 6.0:
public class MyClass
{
public int MyProp1 { get; }
public int MyProp2 { get; private set; }
public MyClass()
{
// OK
MyProp1 = 1;
// OK
MyProp2 = 2;
}
public void MyMethod()
{
// Error CS0200 Property or indexer 'MyClass.MyProp1' cannot be assigned to --it is read only
MyProp1 = 1;
// OK
MyProp2 = 2;
}
}
In earlier versions of C# the first property does not even compile for this reason:
Error 1 'MyClass.MyProp1.get' must declare a body because it is not
marked abstract or extern. Automatically implemented properties must
define both get and set accessors.

Values of these properties could be defined inside constructor only:
// C#, all versions
private readonly int _foo;
public int Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
}
// C#, version 6+
// actually, this is the same as above, but backing field is generated
// for you by compiler
public int Foo { get; }
Note, that if you know the name of backing field, you can change its value through reflection, thus, this will change result of property getter, but this code will fail, because there is no setter:
typeof(SomeType).GetProperty("Foo").SetValue(bar, 1)
Value of this property could be defined inside any method of declaring type, but also one can easily change it using reflection, without knowledge about backing field, because there is setter:
// this will work fine: typeof(SomeType).GetProperty("Foo").SetValue(bar, 1)
public int Foo { get; private set; }
In other words: the main difference, that first one has get-method only, while the second one has both get- and set- methods.

Case 1: With no setter, an auto-implemented property can only be set while declaring the property or inside the constructor as a backing property is created. Therefore, acting as a read-only field.
Case 2: With no setter, a property that is not auto-implemented, can only be set while declaring the property as no backing field is created.
Case 3: With a private setter, a property can be set anywhere inside the class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackling properties in the programming

I am asking a beginner level question. Though I am working in MVC but I am really confused with a simple concept and that is "Properties". There are lot of questions that
I have already gone through but there is surely a doubt in mind and did'nt able to clear it up.
Actually c# properties used for getting and setting the value to the private fields.
Like
Public class MyClass
{
private int number;
public int Number{
get{ return this.number;}
set{ number=Value }
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
MyClass example = new MyClass();
example.Number = 5; // set { }
Console.WriteLine(example.Number); // get { }
}
}
Now , the value is assigned to property also and to the variable also. Right?
Now , here is my doubt::
When we create property in model for MVc structure, we only have
public int Number{get;set;}
If this is okay to work with then why we are creating unnecessorily one more field of private access specifier. If encapsulation is the reason for that or hiding the data then why not in model in MVC?
Actually, in the above class example can I only use
Console.WriteLine(example.number);
after declaring it public?
Then what's the use of creating property over here?

Properties can be used to a store and retrieve values from a backing field (number in your case) directly as in your first sample. But property getters and setters are ordinary blocks of code that you can use as you want. So you don't have to assign a backing field, but can derive the value of a property also from another property in a getter, e.g.
public int NumberTimesTwo
{
get
{
return Number * 2;
}
}
However, as a common scenario is to have a property retrieve and assign the value of a backing field, there is a shortcut that you can use:
public int Number { get; set; }
In this case, the compiler automatically creates a private backing field that the property retrieves in the getter and assigns in the setter, so the code is equivalent to the following, but less to type:
private int _number;
public into Number
{
get
{
return _number;
}
set
{
_number = value;
}
}
As the backing field is also private, you cannot access it from outside of the class directly.

private int myVar;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myVar; }
set { myVar = value; }
}
You are implementing Encapsulation by using MyProperty, which is public to access myVar which is private and is accessible only in the block where defined, that is, your class and not outside it.
Btw, in what way does this QA not answer your question? Try going through this for further reference.

c# property setter body without declaring a class-level property variable

Do I need to declare a class-level variable to hold a property, or can I just refer to self.{propertyname} in the getter/setter?
In other words, can I do this? (where I haven't defined mongoFormId anywhere):
public string mongoFormId
{
get
{
return this.mongoFormId;
}
set
{
this.mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}

You can either use automatic accessors or implement your own. If you use automatic accessors, the C# compiler will generate a backing field for you, but if you implement your own you must manually provide a backing field (or handle the value some other way).
private string _mongoFormId;
public string mongoFormId
{
get { return this._mongoFormId; }
set
{
this._mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}
UPDATE: Since this question was asked, C# 6.0 has been released. However, even with the new syntax options, there is still no way to provide a custom setter body without the need to explicitly declare a backing field.

You need to set a field variable and store the value there, if you're going to use custom getter and setter.
With the code you have right now you will be running into a stack overflow exception. When you assign something to mongoFormId, you'll execute the line this.MongoFormId = value;. This is an assignment to mongoFormId, resulting in executing the line this.MongoFormId = value;, and so on. It won't ever stop.
The correct way is a field:
private string _mongoFormId;
public string mongoFormId {
get { return this._mongoFormId; }
set {
this._mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}

You should have a backing variable. Take a closer look:
get { return this.mongoFormId; }
Is going to call the getter on mongoFormId, which will call that code again, and again, and again! Defining a backing variable will avoid the infinite recursive call.

Check MSDN Properties Overview
While a property definition generally includes a private data member,
this is not required. The get accessor could return a value without
accessing a private data member. One example is a property whose get
method returns the system time. Properties enable data hiding, the
accessor methods hide the implementation of the property.

You can do it both the ways.
If you want to have a class level member variable then do it this way -
public class sampleClass
{
private string _mongoFormId;
public string mongoFormId {
get { return _mongoFormId; }
set {
_mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}
}
Or do this simple in class, if no need for revalidateTransformation() execution call there
public class sampleClass
{
public string mongoFormId {get; set;}
}

This won't work since you get a recursive call to the property.
If I'm not mistaken, the result will be a StackOverflowException.
You must use a variable.
private string mongoFormId;
public string MongoFormId
{
get
{
return this.mongoFormId;
}
set
{
this.mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}
If you don't have to execute revalidateTransformation, you can use the auto-property.
This will create a backingfiled for you behind the scene.
public string MongoFormId { get; set; }

With the code you wrote, you are creating a recursive endless loop on both the get and set. The this keyword refer to the current class, not the property you are in.
So yes, you need to declare a private field. And to avoid confusion, create properties following the MSDN Naming Guideline (Use Pascal case for properties, camel case for private fields). And please do the same for your methods, it should be RevalidateTransformation instead of revalidateTransformation if you follow the C# convention instead of java's.
private string mongoFormId;
public string MongoFormId
{
get
{
return mongoFormId;
}
set
{
mongoFormId = value;
RevalidateTransformation();
}
}

public string mongoFormId {
get {
return this.mongoFormId;
}
set {
this.mongoFormId = value;
revalidateTransformation();
}
}
this way you have the Function recursive on all paths
The only way i see is to use a private data member. As other boys tells.

Basic C# property question

In C# do properties need to reference private member variables, or can I just declare the properties and use them directly in the class code?
If the former is the best practice, then does that rule out using C# property short-hand? I.e.
public string FirstName { get; set; }

Properties, when implemented like this:
public string FirstName { get; set; }
Automatically create a private member variable (the compiler does this for you), so you don't have to worry about it. This will behave exactly the same as if you do:
private string firstName;
public string FirstName {
get { return firstName; }
set { firstName = value; }
}
There is no reason not to use the automatic properties ( { get; set; } ). The provide the same advantages as making your own private member variable.
In addition, if you later decide you need to do extra processing (for example, if you decide to implement INotifyPropertyChanged in your property setter), you can add this without changing your public API, but putting a backing field in manually.

You don't need properties to access private fields but in general it is considered best practice.
And you can use auto-properties (short hand) untill you need to add more functionality to a property, like validation. Changing it to a 'real' property is always a non-breaking change.

Properties created like this
public String Caption{ get; set; }
this will be compiled as
[CompilerGenerated]
private string <Caption>k__BackingField;
public string Caption
{
[CompilerGenerated]
get
{
return this.<Caption>k__BackingField;
}
[CompilerGenerated]
set
{
this.<Caption>k__BackingField = value;
}
}
The above code is extracted after compilation using reflector tool.

They do not need to reference private member variables. You can use them directly in the class.

Properties do not need to reference private member variables. It is best practice, though, to have them do so. You can think of properties as methods if it makes it easier to understand. You can run code inside of them. You can return whatever you want. You can call methods and use private member variables. You can even simply return a constant.
I use private member variables in almost all cases. It allows me to create a readonly property, or to provide some rules to those outside my class of getting or setting properties that my class doesn't have to follow.

To add on to Reed's answer, inside of your code (within the class itself) the member functions should adhere to this and actually use the Property rather then the actual private member. For instance if you had this:
public string FirstName { get; set; }
And you had a strange method called public char GetFirstLetter() that returned the first letter in a person's first name you'd want to do it like this:
public char GetFirstLetter()
{
return FirstName[0];
}
Instead of actually using your private variable. When you set a property a programmer may have written code to set it in a particular manner. So it only makes sense to simply use that property within your class methods.

C# can reference private variables as in:
public class A
{
private string _b;
public string B
{
get { return _b; }
set { _b = value; }
}
}
The get;set; designation is automatic properties which when compiled will generate the private variable for you, as a way to make it easy to setup your code.

Using properties is the best way to provide a method of control and security to the attributes in a class, always keep the attributes private if possible.

if you use like
public string FirstName { get; set; }
compiler will automatically adds getters and setters for this property automatically.it not a bad practice.
Here is the proof
if you declare
private string firstName;
public string FirstName
{
get { return firstName; }
set { firstName = value; }
}
like this also compiler will takes it as
so its not ruled out... :)