Ok, I'll start my question saying that I understand the evil behind mutable structs, but I'm working with SFML.net and using a lot of Vector2f and such structs.
What I don't get it is why I can have, and change the values of, a field in a class and can't do the same with a property, in the very same class.
Take a look at this code:
using System;
namespace Test
{
public struct TestStruct
{
public string Value;
}
class Program
{
TestStruct structA;
TestStruct structB { get; set; }
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program program = new Program();
// This Works
program.structA.Value = "Test A";
// This fails with the following error:
// Cannot modify the return value of 'Test.Program.structB'
// because it is not a variable
//program.structB.Value = "Test B";
TestStruct copy = program.structB;
copy.Value = "Test B";
Console.WriteLine(program.structA.Value); // "Test A"
Console.WriteLine(program.structB.Value); // Empty, as expected
}
}
}
note: I'll build my own classes to cover the same functionality and keep with my mutability, but I can't see a technical reason why I can do one and can't do other.
When you access a field, you are accessing the actual struct. When you access it through property, you call a method that returns whatever is stored in the property. In the case of a struct, which is a value type, you will get back a copy of the struct. Apparently that copy is not a variable and cannot be changed.
Section "1.7 Structs" of the C# language specification 5.0 says:
With classes, it is possible for two variables to reference the same
object and thus possible for operations on one variable to affect the
object referenced by the other variable. With structs, the variables
each have their own copy of the data, and it is not possible for
operations on one to affect the other.
That explains that you will receive a copy of the struct and not be able to modify the original struct. However, it doesn't describe why it isn't allowed.
Section "11.3.3" of the specifcation:
When a property or indexer of a struct is the target of an assignment,
the instance expression associated with the property or indexer access
must be classified as a variable. If the instance expression is
classified as a value, a compile-time error occurs. This is described
in further detail in §7.17.1.
So the returned "thing" from the get accessor is a value and not a variable. That explains the wording in the error message.
The specification also contains an example in section 7.17.1 that is nearly identical to your code:
Given the declarations:
struct Point
{
int x, y;
public Point(int x, int y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
public int X {
get { return x; }
set { x = value; }
}
public int Y {
get { return y; }
set { y = value; }
}
}
struct Rectangle
{
Point a, b;
public Rectangle(Point a, Point b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
public Point A {
get { return a; }
set { a = value; }
}
public Point B {
get { return b; }
set { b = value; }
}
}
in the example
Point p = new Point();
p.X = 100;
p.Y = 100;
Rectangle r = new Rectangle();
r.A = new Point(10, 10);
r.B = p;
the assignments to p.X, p.Y, r.A, and r.B are permitted because p and r are variables. However, in the example
Rectangle r = new Rectangle();
r.A.X = 10;
r.A.Y = 10;
r.B.X = 100;
r.B.Y = 100;
the assignments are all invalid, since r.A and r.B are not variables.
Although properties look like variables, each property is really a combination of a get method and/or a set method. Typically a property get method will return a copy of what's in some variable or array slot, and a put method will copy its parameter into that variable or array slot. If one wants to do something like someVariable = someObject.someProeprty; or someobject.someProperty = someVariable;, it won't matter that those statements end up being executed as var temp=someObject.somePropertyBackingField; someVariable=temp; and var temp=someVariable; someObject.somePropertyBackingField=temp;, respectively. On the other hand, there are some operations which can be done with fields but cannot be done with properties.
If an object George exposes a field named Field1, then code may pass George.Field as a ref or out parameter to another method. Additionally, if the type of Field1 is a value type with exposed fields, then an attempt to access those fields will access the fields of the struct that is stored within George. If Field1 has exposed properties or methods, then accessing those will cause George.Field1 to be passed to those methods as though it were a ref parameter.
If George exposes a property named Property1, then an access of Property1 which is not the left side of an assignment operator will call the "get" method and store its result in a temporary variable. An attempt to read a field of Property1 will read that field from the temporary variable. An attempt to call a property getter or method on Property1 will pass that temporary variable as a ref parameter to that method and then discard it after the method returns. Within the method or property getter or method, this will refer to the temporary variable, and any changes the method makes to this will be discarded.
Because it would make no sense to write to fields of a temporary variable, attempts to write to fields of a property are forbidden. Additionally, present versions of the C# compiler will guess that property setters would be likely to modify this and will thus forbid any use of property setters even when they would in fact not modify the underlying structure [e.g. the reason ArraySegment includes an indexed get method and not an indexed set method is that if one were to try to say e.g. thing.theArraySegment[3] = 4; the compiler would think one was trying to trying to modify the structure returned by the theArraySegment property, rather than modify the array whose reference is encapsulated therein]. It would be extremely useful if one could specify that particular structure methods will modify this and should not be invokable on structure properties, but as yet no mechanism exists for that.
If one wants to write to a field contained within a property, the best pattern is usually:
var temp = myThing.myProperty; // Assume `temp` is a coordinate-point structure
temp.X += 5;
myThing.myProperty = temp;
If the type of myProperty is designed to encapsulate a fixed set of related but independent values (such as the coordinates of a point), it's best if it exposes those variables as fields. Although some people seem to prefer to design structs so as to require constructs like:
var temp = myThing.myProperty; // Assume `temp` is some kind of XNA Point structure
myThing.myProperty = new CoordinatePoint(temp.X+5, temp.Y);
I would regard such code as less readable, less efficient, and more error-prone than the previous style. Among other things, if CoordinatePoint happens to e.g. expose a constructor with parameters X,Y,Z as well as a constructor which takes parameters X,Y and assumes Z is zero, code like the second form would zero out Z without any indication that it was doing so (intentionally or unintentionally). By contrast, if X is an exposed field, it's much clearer that the first form would only modify X.
In some cases, it may be helpful for a class to expose an internal field or array slot via a method that passes it as a ref parameter to a user-defined routine, e.g. a List<T>-like class might expose:
delegate void ActByRef<T1>(ref T1 p1);
delegate void ActByRef<T1,T2>(ref T1 p1, ref T2 p2);
void ActOnItem(int index, ActByRef<T> proc)
{
proc(ref BackingArray[index]);
}
void ActOnItem<PT>(int index, ActByRef<T,PT> proc, ref PT extraParam)
{
proc(ref BackingArray[index], ref extraParam);
}
Code which had a FancyList<CoordinatePoint> and wanted to add some local variable dx to field X of item 5 in iit could then do:
myList.ActOnItem(5, (ref Point pt, ref int ddx) => pt.X += ddx, ref dx);
Note that this approach would allow in-place modification of data in the list, and even allow the use of such methods as Interlocked.CompareExchange). Unfortunately, there's no possible mechanism by which a type which derives from List<T> can support such a method, and no mechanism by which a type which does support such a method can be passed to code which expects a List<T>.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Sum up all the properties of a collection and dynamically assigned it to another object
(3 answers)
Why doesn't reflection set a property in a Struct?
(3 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
So I have a struct like this:
public struct Attributes {
public int vitality;
public int intelligence;
public int dexterity;
public int agility;
}
And I use it like this:
Attributes a = new Attributes();
Attributes b = new Attributes();
And what I want to achieve is this:
Attributes c = new Attributes();
c = a + b;
I want this to give me the sum of these 4 variables I specified above of those two Attributess.
Inside the struct, I tried to have this:
public static Attributes operator +(Attributes x, Attributes y) {
PropertyInfo[] info = typeof(Attributes).GetType().GetProperties();
for (int i = 0; i < info.Length; i++) {
info[i].SetValue(x, (int) info[i].GetValue(x) + (int) info[i].GetValue(y), null);
}
return x;
}
This apparently doesn't work, giving me an error.
Can you guys help me about this? What could I do to achieve what I want? Thanks.
Just use the following:
public static Attributes operator +(Attributes x, Attributes y) {
return new Attributes
{
vitality = x.vitality + y.vitality,
intelligence = x.intelligence + y.intelligence,
dexterity = x.dexterity+ y.dexterity,
agility = x.agility + y.agility
};
}
If you don't have to, there's no need to be fancy and use reflection. It's a powerful tool but don't fall into the golden hammer fallacy. Only use it where truly necessary.
EDIT: if you really do want to use Reflection, this is a working version of your code:
public static Attributes operator +(Attributes x, Attributes y)
{
FieldInfo[] info = typeof(Attributes).GetFields();
object boxedResult = new Attributes();
foreach (FieldInfo fi in info)
{
fi.SetValue(boxedResult, (int)fi.GetValue(x) + (int)fi.GetValue(y));
}
return (Attributes)boxedResult;
}
I think it warrants some explanation for what changes I made:
I would consider it unusual if operator+ modified one of its operands, so I made it return a new Attributes struct instead.
You called typeof(Attributes).GetType() which basically took the type of Attributes and got the type of the type, which is definitely not what you want.
You were checking for property info, but Attributes does not have properties, only fields.
I explicitly boxed the Attributes struct before setting its fields. Boxing a struct makes a copy of it, and boxing happens when you take a value type (like any struct for example) and cast it to object. What happens is your value type (which lives on the stack) is put into a neat little reference-type box and stored on the heap, since only reference types can live on the heap. Actually, a copy of it is stored on the heap. So since SetValue takes an object parameter as the "target", the struct would be boxed every time, effectively taking your changes and applying them to a copy which is then promptly thrown away. By explicitly boxing it, I make all the changes on the same copy of your struct, and then returning that after unboxing it. This step would not be necessary if Attributes was a reference type.
I am having a problem were the reference to an object in a list is lost, this is how I elaborated my code :
PropertyObject[] myProperties = new PropertyObject[200];
var objParent = new Parent();
var objProperty = new PropertyObject();
myProperties[0] = objProperty;
objParent.property = myProperties[0];
Now when I modify objParent.property it does not modify the object in the myProperties array, any workaround? I need this so that I don't have to iterate over the array.
This is how I modify the object :
public void modifyObject(ref Parent objectToModify) {
objectToModify.property.isThisCrazy = true;
}
Then I just invoke the modifyObject method.
structs are meant to be immutable. Assinging a struct to another variable will cause the struct to be copied.
When assigning properties on the one instance, the properties of the other other instance of the struct aren't changed. Hence, you don't see updated in the other reference.
Sample code demonstrating the problem with structs:
struct X
{
public string Y { get; set; }
public X(string y) : this()
{
Y = y;
}
}
X x = new X("abc");
X x2 = x;
x2.Y = "def";
Console.WriteLine(x.Y);
Console.WriteLine(x2.Y);
With classes you'd expected x.Y and x2.Y to be the same, but not with structs.
You write that a "reference to an object" is lost, but a struct has no "reference" to it.
A struct has value-type semantics. So when you assign with =, a copy of the right-hand side is made. You do:
myProperties[0] = objProperty;
This copies the value, and puts a copy inside the 0th entry of the array.
If you later modify the "original" instance objProperty, that change will not be present in the copy held in the array.
This is not really an array issue. The same happens with all struct value assignments. For example:
var objProperty2 = objProperty;
If the original objProperty is mutated afterwards, the copied value objProperty2 will be unaffected. See for example C# Reference type assignment VS value type assignment.
Some people consider mutable structs evil.
Does the order in which I set properties using the object initializer syntax get executed in the exact same order?
For instance if I do this:
var s = new Person { FirstName = "Micah",
LastName = "Martin",
IsLoaded = true
}
will each property get set in the same order?
Yes.
Apologies for getting interrupted (I have to actually do some work every so often). The spec doesn't explicitly say it, but it makes it pretty clear IMO in section 7.6.10.2:
An object initializer consists of a sequence of member initializers, enclosed by { and } tokens and separated by commas.
(Note the word "sequence" here, rather than "set". I personally think that's significant, as a sequence is ordered.)
The following class represents a point with two coordinates:
public class Point
{
int x, y;
public int X { get { return x; } set { x = value; } }
public int Y { get { return y; } set { y = value; } }
}
An instance of Point can be created and initialized as follows:
Point a = new Point { X = 0, Y = 1 };
which has the same effect as
Point __a = new Point();
__a.X = 0;
__a.Y = 1;
Point a = __a;
where __a is an otherwise invisible and inaccessible temporary variable.
EDIT: I've had a response from Mads Torgersen, who has basically said that anything which can be done now will preserve the order. There may be some oddities in future where the order is not preserved in weird cases where you're doing something other than setting a property/field, but that will depend on where the language goes.
It's worth pointing out that there are actually lots of steps going on here - there's the order of execution of the evaluation of the arguments (i.e. the RHS bits) and the order of execution of the assignments. For example, if you have:
new Foo
{
A = X,
B = Y
}
all the following orders are possible while still maintaining the order of the actual property execution (A and B):
Evaluate X, assign to A, evaluate Y, assign to B
Evaluate X, evaluate Y, assign to A, assign to B
Evaluate Y, evaluate X, assign to A, assign to B
I believe the first option is the one actually taken, but this was just to demonstrate that there's more to it than meets the eye.
I would also be very wary of actually writing code which depends on this...
I have a problem using a class of made of structures.
Here's the basic definition:
using System;
struct Real
{
public double real;
public Real(double real)
{
this.real = real;
}
}
class Record
{
public Real r;
public Record(double r)
{
this.r = new Real(r);
}
public void Test(double origval, double newval)
{
if (this.r.real == newval)
Console.WriteLine("r = newval-test passed\n");
else if (this.r.real == origval)
Console.WriteLine("r = origval-test failed\n");
else
Console.WriteLine("r = neither-test failed\n");
}
}
When I create a non-dynamic (static?) Record, setting the Real works.
When I create a dynamic Record, setting the real doesn't work.
When I create a dynamic Record, replacing the real works.
And here's the test program
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
double origval = 8.0;
double newval = 5.0;
// THIS WORKS - create fixed type Record, print, change value, print
Record record1 = new Record(origval);
record1.r.real = newval; // change value ***
record1.Test(origval, newval);
// THIS DOESN'T WORK. change value is not making any change!
dynamic dynrecord2 = new Record(origval);
dynrecord2.r.real = newval; // change value
dynrecord2.Test(origval, newval);
// THIS WORKS - create dynamic type Record, print, change value, print
dynamic dynrecord3 = new Record(origval);
dynamic r = dynrecord3.r; // copy out value
r.real = newval; // change copy
dynrecord3.r = r; // copy in modified value
dynrecord3.Test(origval, newval);
}
}
And here's the output:
r = newval-test passed
r = origval-test failed
r = newval-test passed
When I change the struct Real to class Real, all three cases work.
So what's going on?
Thanks,
Max
dynamic is really a fancy word for object as far as the core CLI is concerned, so you are mutating a boxed copy. This is prone to craziness. Mutating a struct in the first place is really, really prone to error. I would simply make the struct immutable - otherwise you are going to get this over and over.
I dug a little deeper into this problem. Here's an answer from Mads Torgersen of Microsoft.
From Mads:
This is a little unfortunate but by design. In
dynrecord2.r.real = newval; // change value
The value of dynrecord2.r gets boxed, which means copied into its own heap object. That copy is the one getting modified, not the original that you subsequently test.
This is a consequence of the very “local” way in which C# dynamic works. Think about a statement like the above – there are two fundamental ways that we could attack that:
1) Realize at compile time that something dynamic is going on, and essentially move the whole statement to be bound at runtime
2) Bind individual operations at runtime when their constituents are dynamic, returning something dynamic that may in turn cause things to be bound at runtime
In C# we went with the latter, which is nicely compositional, and makes it easy to describe dynamic in terms of the type system, but has some drawbacks – such as boxing of resulting value types for instance.
So what you are seeing is a result of this design choice.
I took another look at the MSIL. It essentially takes
dynrecord2.r.real = newval;
and turns it into:
Real temp = dynrecord2.r;
temp.real = newval;
If dynrecord2.r is a class, it just copies the handle so the change affects the internal field. If dynrecord2.r is a struct, a copy is made, and the change doesn't affect the original.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if this is a bug or a feature.
Max
Make your struct immutable and you won't have problems.
struct Real
{
private double real;
public double Real{get{return real;}}
public Real(double real)
{
this.real = real;
}
}
Mutable structs can be useful in native interop or some high performance scenarios, but then you better know what you're doing.
I'm looking for the C# equivalent of Java's final. Does it exist?
Does C# have anything like the following:
public Foo(final int bar);
In the above example, bar is a read only variable and cannot be changed by Foo(). Is there any way to do this in C#?
For instance, maybe I have a long method that will be working with x, y, and z coordinates of some object (ints). I want to be absolutely certain that the function doesn't alter these values in any way, thereby corrupting the data. Thus, I would like to declare them readonly.
public Foo(int x, int y, int z) {
// do stuff
x++; // oops. This corrupts the data. Can this be caught at compile time?
// do more stuff, assuming x is still the original value.
}
Unfortunately you cannot do this in C#.
The const keyword can only be used for local variables and fields.
The readonly keyword can only be used on fields.
NOTE: The Java language also supports having final parameters to a method. This functionality is non-existent in C#.
from http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html
EDIT (2019/08/13):
I'm throwing this in for visibility since this is accepted and highest on the list. It's now kind of possible with in parameters. See the answer below this one for details.
This is now possible in C# version 7.2:
You can use the in keyword in the method signature. MSDN documentation.
The in keyword should be added before specifying a method's argument.
Example, a valid method in C# 7.2:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
return x + y;
}
While the following is not allowed:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
x = 10; // It is not allowed to modify an in-argument.
return x + y;
}
Following error will be shown when trying to modify either x or y since they are marked with in:
Cannot assign to variable 'in long' because it is a readonly variable
Marking an argument with in means:
This method does not modify the value of the argument used as this parameter.
The answer: C# doesn't have the const functionality like C++.
I agree with Bennett Dill.
The const keyword is very useful. In the example, you used an int and people don't get your point. But, why if you parameter is an user huge and complex object that can't be changed inside that function? That's the use of const keyword: parameter can't change inside that method because [whatever reason here] that doesn't matters for that method. Const keyword is very powerful and I really miss it in C#.
Here's a short and sweet answer that will probably get a lot of down votes. I haven't read all of the posts and comments, so please forgive me if this has been previously suggested.
Why not take your parameters and pass them into an object that exposes them as immutable and then use that object in your method?
I realize this is probably a very obvious work around that has already been considered and the OP is trying to avoid doing this by asking this question, but I felt it should be here none-the-less...
Good luck :-)
I'll start with the int portion. int is a value type, and in .Net that means you really are dealing with a copy. It's a really weird design constraint to tell a method "You can have a copy of this value. It's your copy, not mine; I'll never see it again. But you can't change the copy." It's implicit in the method call that copying this value is okay, otherwise we couldn't have safely called the method. If the method needs the original, leave it to the implementer to make a copy to save it. Either give the method the value or do not give the method the value. Don't go all wishy-washy in between.
Let's move on to reference types. Now it gets a little confusing. Do you mean a constant reference, where the reference itself cannot be changed, or a completely locked, unchangeable object? If the former, references in .Net by default are passed by value. That is, you get a copy of the reference. So we have essentially the same situation as for value types. If the implementor will need the original reference they can keep it themselves.
That just leaves us with constant (locked/immutable) object. This might seem okay from a runtime perspective, but how is the compiler to enforce it? Since properties and methods can all have side effects, you'd essentially be limited to read-only field access. Such an object isn't likely to be very interesting.
Create an interface for your class that has only readonly property accessors. Then have your parameter be of that interface rather than the class itself. Example:
public interface IExample
{
int ReadonlyValue { get; }
}
public class Example : IExample
{
public int Value { get; set; }
public int ReadonlyValue { get { return this.Value; } }
}
public void Foo(IExample example)
{
// Now only has access to the get accessors for the properties
}
For structs, create a generic const wrapper.
public struct Const<T>
{
public T Value { get; private set; }
public Const(T value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
}
public Foo(Const<float> X, Const<float> Y, Const<float> Z)
{
// Can only read these values
}
Its worth noting though, that its strange that you want to do what you're asking to do regarding structs, as the writer of the method you should expect to know whats going on in that method. It won't affect the values passed in to modify them within the method, so your only concern is making sure you behave yourself in the method you're writing. There comes a point where vigilance and clean code are the key, over enforcing const and other such rules.
I know this might be little late.
But for people that are still searching other ways for this, there might be another way around this limitation of C# standard.
We could write wrapper class ReadOnly<T> where T : struct.
With implicit conversion to base type T.
But only explicit conversion to wrapper<T> class.
Which will enforce compiler errors if developer tries implicit set to value of ReadOnly<T> type.
As I will demonstrate two possible uses below.
USAGE 1 required caller definition to change. This usage will have only use in testing for correctness of your "TestCalled" functions code. While on release level/builds you shouldn't use it. Since in large scale mathematical operations might overkill in conversions, and make your code slow. I wouldn't use it, but for demonstration purpose only I have posted it.
USAGE 2 which I would suggest, has Debug vs Release use demonstrated in TestCalled2 function. Also there would be no conversion in TestCaller function when using this approach, but it requires a little more of coding of TestCaller2 definitions using compiler conditioning. You can notice compiler errors in debug configuration, while on release configuration all code in TestCalled2 function will compile successfully.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class ReadOnly<VT>
where VT : struct
{
private VT value;
public ReadOnly(VT value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public static implicit operator VT(ReadOnly<VT> rvalue)
{
return rvalue.value;
}
public static explicit operator ReadOnly<VT>(VT rvalue)
{
return new ReadOnly<VT>(rvalue);
}
}
public static class TestFunctionArguments
{
static void TestCall()
{
long a = 0;
// CALL USAGE 1.
// explicite cast must exist in call to this function
// and clearly states it will be readonly inside TestCalled function.
TestCalled(a); // invalid call, we must explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
TestCalled((ReadOnly<long>)a); // explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
// CALL USAGE 2.
// Debug vs Release call has no difference - no compiler errors
TestCalled2(a);
}
// ARG USAGE 1.
static void TestCalled(ReadOnly<long> a)
{
// invalid operations, compiler errors
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
// ARG USAGE 2.
#if DEBUG
static void TestCalled2(long a2_writable)
{
ReadOnly<long> a = new ReadOnly<long>(a2_writable);
#else
static void TestCalled2(long a)
{
#endif
// invalid operations
// compiler will have errors in debug configuration
// compiler will compile in release
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
// compiler will compile in both, debug and release configurations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
}
If you often run into trouble like this then you should consider "apps hungarian". The good kind, as opposed to the bad kind. While this doesn't normally tries to express constant-ness of a method parameter (that's just too unusual), there is certainly nothing that stops you from tacking an extra "c" before the identifier name.
To all those aching to slam the downvote button now, please read the opinions of these luminaries on the topic:
Eric Lippert
Larry Osterman
Joel Spolsky
If struct is passed into a method, unless it's passed by ref, it will not be changed by the method it's passed into. So in that sense, yes.
Can you create a parameter whose value can't be assigned within the method or whose properties cannot be set while within the method? No. You cannot prevent the value from being assigned within the method, but you can prevent it's properties from being set by creating an immutable type.
The question isn't whether the parameter or it's properties can be assigned to within the method. The question is what it will be when the method exits.
The only time any outside data is going to be altered is if you pass a class in and change one of it's properties, or if you pass a value by using the ref keyword. The situation you've outlined does neither.
The recommended (well, by me) is to use an interface that provides read only access to the members. Remembering that if the "real" member is a reference type, then only provide access to an interface supporting read operations for that type -- recursing down the entire object hierarchy.