Is it possible to create a class in .NET 4 with:
an indexer,
a property named "Item"?
For example, this C# class will not compile for me:
public class MyClass
{
public object Item { get; set; }
public object this[string index] { get { return null; } set { } }
}
The compiler gives an error CS0102:
The type 'MyClass' already contains a definition for 'Item'
although I am only explicitly defining Item once.
Based on this site, it is possible to use an attribute to rename the Indexer
public class MyClass
{
public object Item { get; set; }
[System.Runtime.CompilerServices.IndexerName("MyItem")]
public object this[string index] { get { return null; } set { } }
}
C# internally creates a property called Item for languages that don't support the indexer. You can control this name using the IndexerNameAttribute, like this:
[IndexerName("MyIndexer")]
public object this[string index]
{
get { return blah; }
}
If I remember correctly, such an indexer can be accessed from VB.Net through an "Item()" method. That would be where that "defined twice" comes from.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Generic list of generic objects
(3 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have an object that I want to put into a List or Collection. Is there a way to do that without having the T specified?
I want to do something like this: List<CommonProperty<T>>
Here's the object for reference:
internal class CommonProperty<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
public List<T> PossibleValues { get; set; }
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
if (!_value.Equals(value))
{
_value = value;
}
}
}
}
No, you can't use open generic types like that.
You could have a List<CommonProperty<T>> within a context where T is already a type parameter:
public class Foo<T>
{
static void Bar()
{
// This is fine, but is not what you're looking for - it uses
// the type parameter T as the type argument
List<CommonProperty<T>> list = new List<CommonProperty<T>>();
}
}
Typically the solution here is to have a non-generic base class or interface which the generic class or interface derives from:
// Consider making it abstract
internal class CommonProperty
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
}
internal class CommonProperty<T> : CommonProperty
{
public List<T> PossibleValues { get; set; }
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get => _value;
set
{
// TODO: Is this really necessary?
if (!_value.Equals(value))
{
_value = value;
}
}
}
}
You can then create a List<CommonProperty>... although be aware that it's entirely possible that you could end up with an element which wasn't a CommonProperty<T> at all that way.
From the List<CommonProperty> you'd be able to retrieve the names and types of all the properties - but the values wouldn't be available without casting to the specific type. You could have an abstract object Value { get; set; } property in the base class, which was then overridden in the derived class, potentially - but it's not clear whether that's necessary or helpful in your use case.
I think the closest you can get is to define an interface to match an un-typed (specific) CommonProperty, using Object instead of the T. Then have your CommonProperty<T> implement that interface. Now you can use the interface with your list.
But this isn't great. You'll lose a lot of nice type checking, and have to do more casting. If this is the primary way you'll use these objects, there's not much point to having a generic class at all anymore.
It is not possible to put a mixture of generics instantiated with different type arguments into the same collection. Such collection would not be useful anyway, because the caller would be expected to supply T for each item at compile time.
Suppose you could do what you want, i.e.
// imagine that you could do this
List<CommonProperty<T>> mixedList = GetAllProperties();
You would be forced to supply T once you start using items from that list, i.e.
foreach (CommonProperty<T> prop in mixedList) {
... // ^^^
... // Here you would need to specify T, but you don't know which one
}
In other words, such list would be unusable.
A list of properties of a specific type, on the other hand, would be useful:
List<CommonProperty<string>> stringPropList = GetPropertiesOfType<string>();
foreach (CommonProperty<string> prop in stringPropList ) {
...
}
Therefore, one solution to your problem would be building GetPropertiesOfType<T> method returning List<CommonProperty<T>> bound to type T from the caller.
An alternative approach would be to make CommonProperty non-generic, and let the caller check the type at runtime:
internal class CommonProperty {
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
public List<T> GetPossibleValues<T> { get; set; }
private object _value;
public T GetValue<T>() {
return (T)_value;
}
public void SetValue<T>(T val) {
_value = val;
}
}
I have an object with the following:
public class ExpenseFilters<T> {
public ExpenseFilterType Type {get;set;}
public T Value {get;set;}
}
T can be a string, int, decimal in this case.
I want to create a method that accepts a generic list of ExpenseFilters:
public void DoSomething(List<ExpenseFilters<T>> filterList) {}
Is this possible somehow?
EDIT: Apologies as I wasn't being clear enough.
I want the List of ExpenseFilters to not be constrained to one generic type.
For example, the list should contain
ExpenseFilters<int>
as well as
ExpenseFilters<string>
Is this possible?
Make the method generic:
public void DoSomething<T>(List<ExpenseFilters<T>> filterList) { }
When you use this method, the type parameter T can usually be inferred by the compiler, so you don't even need to specify it:
List<ExpenseFilters<int>> list = new List<ExpenseFilters<int>>();
DoSomething(list);
Edit
Turns out it's not what you wanted to do.
It's not possible to do it with generics. The closest thing you might do is to create a non-generic interface or base class implemented/inherited by the generic one.
public interface IExpenseFilters
{
ExpenseFilterType Type { get; set; }
object Value { get; set; }
}
public class ExpenseFilters<T> : IExpenseFilters
{
public ExpenseFilterType Type { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
object IExpenseFilters.Value
{
get { return Value; }
set
{
if (!(value is T))
throw new ArgumentException("Incorrect type", "value");
Value = (T)value;
}
}
}
In Winform application I have a class with 2 properties and I want the user to be able to choose the type of those properties.
This is what I made so far:
Class with the properties:
static public class DataGridColumnData
{
public static object SearchColumn { get; set; }
public static object ResultColumn { get; set; }
}
And the user can choose the type of the properties using a Combobox with DropDownList Style which has values like
System.String
System.Double
System.Int32
System.Boolean
System.DateTime
Is there a way to make those properties to be types the ones that user chooses?
You can make your class generic:
static public class DataGridColumnData<T>
{
public static T SearchColumn { get; set; }
public static T ResultColumn { get; set; }
}
Then, in your code, you can create a class of the desired type:
object myDataGridColumnData;
if (userSelection == "String") {
myDataGridColumnData = new DataGridColumnData<string>();
} else if (userSelection == "Double") {
myDataGridColumnData = new DataGridColumnData<double>();
} ...
Note that, technically, DataGridColumnData<string> is a completely different type than DataGridColumnData<int>, so object is the only common supertype. Thus, to be able to access the values of myDataGridColumnData in code, you might need to use a dynamic variable or (prefered) use some common interface or base class that returns the values typed as objects.
There are ways to make the properties strongly typed in runtime using generics, but I am not sure how useful it is. Here is a solution either way:
Create an interface that is not strongly typed to facilitate interaction with the object:
public interface IDataGridColumnData
{
object SearchColumnAsObject { get; set; }
object ResultColumnAsObject { get; set; }
}
Create generic class that allows for the creation of strongly typed versions at runtime (and in code as well, of course), and that implements the interface:
public class DataGridColumnData<TSearch, TResult> : IDataGridColumnData
{
public TSearch SearchColumn { get; set; }
public static TResult ResultColumn { get; set; }
public object SearchColumnAsObject
{
get { return SearchColumn; }
set { SearchColumn = (TSearch)value; }
}
public object ResultColumnAsObject
{
get { return ResultColumn; }
set { ResultColumn = (TResult)value; }
}
}
Create a factory method that will manufacture strongly typed versions of the class, returning it as the object-typed interface:
private static IDataGridColumnData GetDataGridColumnData(
Type searchType, Type resultType)
{
var typedColumnDataType = typeof(DataGridColumnData<,>)
.MakeGenericType(new[] { searchType, resultType });
return (IDataGridColumnData)Activator.CreateInstance(typedColumnDataType);
}
...and put it to use:
IDataGridColumnData instance = GetDataGridColumnData(
Type.GetType("System.Int32"),
Type.GetType("System.String"));
// use the properties
instance.SearchColumnAsObject = 42; // works well
instance.SearchColumnAsObject = "42"; // throws exception
No, ther is not. A class is statically compiled. No wy to change the property for a static class at runtime.
You can create a subclass nd override it, via bytecode emission, though.
You can use the is keyword
if (x.SearchColumn is Double)
{
}
See also MSDN: Is (C# Reference)
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
I want to create something like this, but this is won't work. it's just an example to demonstrate my goal as it's pretty common creating proprties for string and int and even T but I've never seen a List property
Is it even possible do such a thing, creating a property for type List ?
EDIT
I have a normal class that has normal properties (string properties, int properties, etc) but I have this property that stores user options, So on the presentation layer I had to convert them into a string so I could be able to store them in the Object. Now is it possible to have a property of type List to store the multivalues in a better and clean way, instead of converting information into one string and then split it and again join it! Thanks Again =D
EDIT2
private List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> _settings;
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings
{
get { return _settings; }
set { _settings = value; }
}
I used the exact code you posted but the property still won't appear in the object's instance, so I tried adding code in the get and set (I wonder why you left them empty or does it means something?) and also added a private variable in the class but still it doesn't appear in the properties of the object's instance!
I hope you could provide the exact code to implement this property and a simple code that assigns or retrieves from/to an instance of this class object
It's the first time to even hear about this KeyValuePair and all the tutorials are pretty simple and not for my case, sorry!
The Last Edit: After a lot of researching and the help of Mark Avenius I found the perfect answer. hope everyone can benefit from this.
NOW! HOW TO CREATE A PROPERTY FOR A LIST :
The Options Class
Public Class Options
{
private string id;
private int option;
public int ID
{
get { return id; }
set { id= value; }
}
public string Option
{
get { return option; }
set { option = value; }
}
}
The Users Class
public class Users
{
private int userId;
private string pass;
private List<Options> userOptions = new List<Options>();
public int ID
{
get { return userId; }
set { user = userId; }
}
public string Pass
{
get { return pass; }
set { pass = value; }
}
public List<Options> OptionsList
{
get { return userOptions; }
set { userOptions = value; }
}
}
The Presentation Layer
Users newUser = new Users ();
Options userOption = new Options ();
userOption.ID = int.Parse(txtBxID.Text);
userOption.Option = txtBxOption.Text;
Item.Options.Add(userOption);
T must be defined within the scope in which you are working. Therefore, what you have posted will work if your class is generic on T:
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> newList;
public List<T> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
}
Otherwise, you have to use a defined type.
EDIT: Per #lKashef's request, following is how to have a List property:
private List<int> newList;
public List<int> NewList
{
get{return newList;}
set{newList = value;}
}
This can go within a non-generic class.
Edit 2:
In response to your second question (in your edit), I would not recommend using a list for this type of data handling (if I am understanding you correctly). I would put the user settings in their own class (or struct, if you wish) and have a property of this type on your original class:
public class UserSettings
{
string FirstName { get; set; }
string LastName { get; set; }
// etc.
}
public class MyClass
{
string MyClassProperty1 { get; set; }
// etc.
UserSettings MySettings { get; set; }
}
This way, you have named properties that you can reference instead of an arbitrary index in a list. For example, you can reference MySettings.FirstName as opposed to MySettingsList[0].
Let me know if you have any further questions.
EDIT 3:
For the question in the comments, your property would be like this:
public class MyClass
{
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> MySettings { get; set; }
}
EDIT 4: Based on the question's edit 2, following is how I would use this:
public class MyClass
{
// note that this type of property declaration is called an "Automatic Property" and
// it means the same thing as you had written (the private backing variable is used behind the scenes, but you don't see it)
public List<KeyValuePair<string, string> MySettings { get; set; }
}
public class MyConsumingClass
{
public void MyMethod
{
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.MySettings = new List<KeyValuePair<string, string>>();
myClass.MySettings.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("SomeKeyValue", "SomeValue"));
// etc.
}
}
You mentioned that "the property still won't appear in the object's instance," and I am not sure what you mean. Does this property not appear in IntelliSense? Are you sure that you have created an instance of MyClass (like myClass.MySettings above), or are you trying to access it like a static property (like MyClass.MySettings)?
Simple and effective alternative:
public class ClassName
{
public List<dynamic> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
or
public class ClassName
{
public List<object> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
For differences see this post: List<Object> vs List<dynamic>
public class MyClass<T>
{
private List<T> list;
public List<T> MyList { get { return list; } set { list = value; } }
}
Then you can do something like
MyClass<int> instance1 = new MyClass<int>();
List<int> integers = instance1.MyList;
MyClass<Person> instance2 = new MyClass<Person>();
IEnumerable<Person> persons = instance2.MyList;
You could do this but the T generic parameter needs to be declared at the containing class:
public class Foo<T>
{
public List<T> NewList { get; set; }
}
It's possible to have a property of type List<T> but your class needs to be passed the T too.
public class ClassName<T>
{
public List<T> MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Either specify the type of T, or if you want to make it generic, you'll need to make the parent class generic.
public class MyClass<T>
{
etc
I want to declare a variable like this in C#
public anyType variable;
and then I can use it like this
variable["name1"] = anyValue1;
variable["name2"] = anyValue2;
I cannot find out any solution to declare what type of variable is to use it that way.
Please help me.
I appreciate any comments
Additional information:
I have a class:
public class Template
{
public string Name {get; set; }
public string Content {get; set;}
}
I want to set value for Template Content and Template Name like this
Template t = new Template();
t["Name"] = "template1";
t["Content"] = "templatecontent1";
not:
Template t = new Template();
t.Name = "template1";
t.Content = "templatecontent1";
I mean like a table attribute. Here I have table Template, it has 2 columns Name and Content. So that I can query Template["Name"] and Template["Content"]
Thanks
The type you need is Dictionary<string, object>. You can substitute object for whatever the type of anyValue1 and anyValue2 is.
EDIT: To allow indexers to set properties, you'll almost certainly need reflection. Try this setter on your Template class:
public string this[string field]
{
get
{
PropertyInfo prop = GetType().GetProperty(field);
return prop.GetValue(this, null);
}
set
{
PropertyInfo prop = GetType().GetProperty(field);
prop.SetValue(this, value, null);
}
}
There's no error handling in the above example though, so it'll fail horribly if you try setting a property that doesn't exist, or isn't a string, or doesn't have a getter/setter. You will need to add using System.Reflection to your uses clauses.
You can see this tutorial on indexers.
public Foo this[string index]
{
get { /* ... */ }
set { /* ... */ }
}
I think you're looking for indexers: link1, link2, link3
public class MyType
{
public string this[int index]
{
get
{
//getter implementation
}
set
{
//setter implementation
}
}
}
public class Usage
{
public MyType usageType = new MyType();
public Usage()
{
usageType[0] = "xx";
}
}
If you need you can always define generic type: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6x16t2tx.aspx, indexing with string: http://www.java2s.com/Code/CSharp/Language-Basics/IndexingwithanStringIndex.htm
Use reflection techniques but be seriously cautious.
public class Template
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
public string this[string name]
{
get
{
return typeof(Template).GetProperty(name).GetValue(this, null).ToString();
}
set
{
typeof(Template).GetProperty(name).SetValue(this, value, null);
}
}
}