We Keep Coding

Read only list of lists c#

In general terms, a program I'm making involves storing a small number of entries (probably less than 30 at any given time) which can be categorized. I want to allow these entries to be seen but not altered from outside the class using them. I made a class called Entry which could be modified and another called ReadOnlyEntry which is a wrapper for an Entry object. The easiest way to organize these Entry objects it seems is to create a List<List<Entry>>, where each List<Entry> is a category. But then exposing that data in a readonly way became messy and complicated. I realized I would have to have one object of each of the following types:
List<List<Entry>> data;
List<List<ReadOnlyEntry>> // Where each ReadOnlyEntry is a wrapper for the Entry in the same list and at the same index as its Entry object.
List<IReadOnlyCollection<ReadOnlyEntry>> // Where each IReadOnlyCollection is a wrapper for the List<ReadOnlyEntry> at the same index in data.
IReadOnlyCollection<IReadOnlyCollection<ReadOnlyList>> readOnlyList // Which is a wrapper for the first item I listed.
The last item in the list would be exposed as public. The first lets me change entries, the second lets me add or delete entries, and the third lets me add or delete categories. I would have to keep these wrappers accurate whenever the data changes. This seems convoluted to me, so I'm wondering if there's a blatantly better way to handle this.
Edit 1:
To clarify, I know how to use List.asReadOnly(), and the stuff I proposed doing above will solve my problem. I'm just interested in hearing a better solution. Let me give you some code.
class Database
{
// Everything I described above takes place here.
// The data will be readable by this property:
public IReadOnlyCollection<IReadOnlyCollection<ReadOnlyList>> Data
{
get
{
return readOnlyList;
}
}
// These methods will be used to modify the data.
public void AddEntry(stuff);
public void DeleteEntry(index);
public void MoveEntry(to another category);
public void AddCategory(stuff);
public void DeleteCategory(index);
}

You can use List<T>.AsReadOnly() to return ReadOnlyCollection<T>.
Also, you're torturing the List<T> class storing the data the way you are. Build your own hierarchy of classes which store your individual lists.

.NET collections should support covariance, but they don't support it themselves (instead some interfaces support covariance https://msdn.microsoft.com/ru-ru/library/dd233059.aspx). Covariance means List<Conctrete> behaves like subclass of List<Base> if Concrete is subclass of Base. You can use interfaces covariation or just use casting like this:
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace MyApp
{
interface IEntry
{
}
class Entry : IEntry
{
}
class Program
{
private List<List<Entry>> _matrix = null;
public List<List<IEntry>> MatrixWithROElements
{
get
{
return _matrix.ConvertAll(row => row.ConvertAll(item => item as IEntry));
}
}
public IReadOnlyList<List<IEntry>> MatrixWithRONumberOfRows
{
get
{
return _matrix.ConvertAll(row => row.ConvertAll(item => item as IEntry));
}
}
public List<IReadOnlyList<IEntry>> MatrixWithRONumberOfColumns
{
get
{
return _matrix.ConvertAll(row => row.ConvertAll(item => item as IEntry) as IReadOnlyList<IEntry>);
}
}
public IReadOnlyList<IReadOnlyList<IEntry>> MatrixWithRONumberOfRowsAndColumns
{
get
{
return _matrix.ConvertAll(row => row.ConvertAll(item => item as IEntry));
}
}
public void Main(string[] args)
{
}
}
}
Thanks to Matthew Watson for pointing on errors in my previous answer version.

You could make an interface for Entry which contains only getters; you would expose elements via this interface to provide read-only access:
public interface IEntry
{
int Value { get; }
}
The writable implementation would be simply:
public sealed class Entry : IEntry
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
Now you can take advantage of the fact that you can return a List<List<Entry>> as a IReadOnlyCollection<IReadOnlyCollection<IEntry>> without having to do any extra work:
public sealed class Database
{
private readonly List<List<Entry>> _list = new List<List<Entry>>();
public Database()
{
// Create your list of lists.
List<Entry> innerList = new List<Entry>
{
new Entry {Value = 1},
new Entry {Value = 2}
};
_list.Add(innerList);
}
public IReadOnlyCollection<IReadOnlyCollection<IEntry>> Data => _list;
}
Note how simple the implementation of the Data property is.
If you need to add new properties to IEntry you would also have to add them to Entry, but you wouldn't need to change the Database class.
If you're using C#5 or earlier, Data would look like this:
public IReadOnlyCollection<IReadOnlyCollection<IEntry>> Data
{
get { return _list; }
}

Refer to Self's Type inside a class

in my C# class, I want to refer to type of the class itself, is it possible?
my sample code:
in the line of
private static List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>> ParmPropList;
I don't want to use "CParam1", I wish to use some general way (like "this") to refer to itself. because I have many classes like CParam1, everyone would need to refer to itself this way.
class CParam1
{
private double m_Prop1;
private static List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>> ParmPropList;
public CParam1()
{
}
////-> I wish to replace Cparam1 to something like this
public static List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>> getParmPropList()
{
if (ParmPropList == null)
{
ParmPropList.Add(new CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>("Prop1", "BA", 0, false));
//-> I wish to replace Cparam1 to something like this
}
return ParmPropList;
}
public string Prop1
{
get
{
return m_Prop1.ToString();
}
set
{
m_Prop1 = -1;
double dW1;
if (double.TryParse(value, out dW1))
{
m_Prop1 = dW1;
}
}
}
public class CRcpParmPropEle<T,TProp>
{
public Func<T, TProp> getter;
public Action<T, TProp> setter;
public string PropName { get; set; }
public string ColPos { get; set; }
public int ColNum { get; set; }
public int RowNum { get; set; }
public bool ReadOnly { get; set; }
public CRcpParmPropEle(string strPropName, string strColPos, int nRowNum, bool bReadOnly)
{
PropName = strPropName;
ColPos = strColPos;
RowNum = nRowNum;
ReadOnly = bReadOnly;
var prop = typeof(T).GetProperty(PropName); //typeof(rcpObj).GetProperty(propName);
getter = (Func<T,TProp>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T,TProp>), prop.GetGetMethod());
setter = (Action<T,TProp>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<T,TProp>), prop.GetSetMethod());
}
}

In general, no. There is no way to do this. Since in the contexts where this would typically be used, one is writing code specific to the type anyway, and since we are used to having to specify the type name for static members anyway, this doesn't seem like much of a hardship.
But, there are a couple of alternatives that could work in your scenario, both involving generics.
The first is to delegate the construction of the new object to a generic helper method:
public static List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>> getParmPropList()
{
if (ParmPropList == null)
{
AddToList(ParmPropList, "Prop1", "BA", 0, false);
}
return ParmPropList;
}
private static void AddToList<T>(List<CRcpParmPropEle<T, string>> list, string s1, string s2, int i, bool f)
{
list.Add(new CRcpParmPropEle<T, string>(s1, s2, i, f));
}
In this way, the actual type is inferred from the type of the List<T> object being passed in, and so doesn't need to be restated. Of course, you don't get out of specifying the type somewhere. It just doesn't wind up at this particular call site.
Another option is to use a static helper class to implement the static functionality of your CParam1 class:
static class ParmPropClass<T>
{
private static List<CRcpParmPropEle<T, string>> ParmPropList;
public static List<CRcpParmPropEle<T, string>> getParmPropList()
{
if (ParmPropList == null)
{
ParmPropList.Add(new CRcpParmPropEle<T, string>("Prop1", "BA", 0, false));
}
return ParmPropList;
}
}
Then when you use the static members, you have to specify the type name as ParmPropClass<CParam1> (or whatever, depending on what you wind up naming the helper class). Again, you don't get out of specifying the type name somewhere, but the call site doesn't need to.
In fact, if you are doing this kind of pattern exactly in a number of locations, the generic helper type might be a better way to go, since then you don't have to copy/paste code all the time (a recipe for failing to fix some bug in all the places it was copied to).

There is no straight forward or easy to implement answer here. I'll give you three options but I don't think any of these would be easier than just changing all of the classes. If I had to do this right I would use a dependency injector. in the long run you will be better off and you'll be able to handle this stuff easier next time around. If I had to do it fast and desperate I would use reflection.
Option 1 - Reflection
You could assemble the List at runtime using reflection.
Look at this post for an example of creating a list at runtime with reflection.
Generic list by using reflection
This will make your code really nasty to maintain and you will have to use reflection throughout to manage the list. You would probably add more headaches in runtime errors and difficulty debugging than just changing it everywhere
Option 2 - Common Base Class
If you can make all the CPARAM1 type objects implement from a common base class CPARAMBASE you could define the list using the common base class.
private static List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParamBase, string>> ParmPropList;
Option 3 - Dependency Injection
This isn't something you can just cover in a SO answer but look at dependency injection.
You create an interface between all of the CPARAM type classes and then you inject a concrete type for based on what type it is being injected into.
[Inject]
private static List<CRcpParmPropEle<ICParam, string>> ParmPropList;
In your dependency Injection you could define that ICParam instance would be.
this.Bind<List<CRcpParmPropEle<ICParam, string>>>()
.To<List<CRcpParmPropEle<CParam1, string>>>()
.WhenInjectedInto(typeof(CParam1));
Look up Ninject and then Contextual Binding and http://www.ninject.org/wiki.html

C# - Good and flexible way to pass value types by reference?

My problem, narrowed down to a simple explaination, is the following:
I have a class which needs to work with a number (without changing it) which is subject to change. This number doesn't necessarily come from another class, and it can be anything.
But I'd like to only "give" it to the class once, instead of constantly having to call update methods or having to create a wrapper (since again, as I said, this should work with any kind of number and having to wrap up everything is kind of unpratical).
Here's some code, hoping it helps:
public class SimpleExample
{
int value;
public SimpleExample(int variableOfWhichINeedAReference)
{
//Of course this won't work, but I'll keep it simple.
value = variableOfWhichINeedAReference;
}
public void DisplayValue()
{
print(value);
}
}
public class RandomClass
{
int myValue = 10;
SimpleExample s = new SimpleExample(myValue);
public void WorkWithValue()
{
myValue++;
}
public void Display()
{
print(foo);
print(bar);
s.DisplayValue();
}
}
Now, the problem seems pretty obvious: If I instantiate a SimpleExample and give it a variable as a parameter, it will get its value rather than a reference to it.
Is there a simple enough way that can avoid me the creation of a wrapper? Thanks.

Make a really simple class:
class Ref<T>
{
public T Value;
public Ref<T>()
{
}
public Ref<T>(T value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
}
Then use it like this:
class A
{
Ref<int> x;
public A(Ref<int> x)
{
this.x = x;
}
public void Increment()
{
x.Value++;
}
}
...
Ref<int> x = new Ref<int>(7);
A a = new A(x);
a.Increment();
Debug.Assert(x.Value == 8);
Note that the Ref<T> class here is a reference to a value - not a reference to a variable. If you want a reference to a variable, use Eric Lippert's solution (as pointed out by Filip).

So what you want is not an int, but rather a way of getting an int at some point in time. There are several ways of doing this, one of which is to have your object accept a Func<int>. Then the code can pass in a method that returns the current value of...whatever, rather than the value at the time SimpleExample is created. Using a lambda to close over a variable makes doing this much easier as well.
public class SimpleExample
{
Func<int> func;
public SimpleExample(Func<int> func)
{
this.func = func;
}
public void DisplayValue()
{
print(func());
}
}
public class RandomClass
{
int myValue = 10;
SimpleExample s;
public RandomClass()
{
s = new SimpleExample(() => myValue);
}
public void WorkWithValue()
{
myValue++;
}
public void Display()
{
print(foo);
print(bar);
s.DisplayValue();
}
}

There is no standard wrapper for the purpose you seek, though a single-element array could be used for that purpose. Alternatively, one could define a simple wrapper type:
public class ExposedValueHolder<T> { public T Value; } // Really simple class, eh?
and then use an ExposedValueHolder<YourStructType> to wrap your object. It's not possible in general to capture something passed as an arbitrary ref parameter, since objects may live indefinitely but byrefs (the things which are actually passed when using ref parameters) may die any time after function they're passed to goes out of scope.

Container for properties values

When .NET 4.5 was released i started using such great Attribute as CallerMemberName. It's easier to understand code, developers can write it faster also. It's like a snippet, not only a feature for debug/test purposes.
So I have a question. Is it normal to create and use something like this?
public class PropertyStore
{
Dictionary<string, object> data = new Dictionary<string,object>();
ViewModelBase modelBase;
internal PropertyStore(ViewModelBase _base)
{
modelBase = _base;
}
public void SetValue<T>(T value = default(T), [CallerMemberName] string prop = "")
{
T prev = GetValue<T>(prop);
if ((prev == null && value == null) || (prev != null && prev.Equals(value))) return;
data[prop] = value;
modelBase.OnPropertyChanged(prop);
}
public T GetValue<T>([CallerMemberName] string prop = "")
{
if (!data.ContainsKey(prop))
data[prop] = default(T);
return (T)data[prop];
}
}
Class-helper, that makes other class more readable, and also we have list of our properties without need to use Reflection.
The usage is:
public class SampleClass : ViewModelBase
{
PropertyStore PropertyStore;
public SampleClass ()
{
PropertyStore = new PropertyStore(this);
}
public string Key
{
get { return PropertyStore.GetValue<string>(); }
set { PropertyStore.SetValue(value); }
}
public DateTime Date
{
get { return PropertyStore.GetValue<DateTime>(); }
set { PropertyStore.SetValue(value); }
}
public bool IsSelected
{
get { return PropertyStore.GetValue<bool>(); }
set { PropertyStore.SetValue(value); }
}
}
The class ViewModelBase here simply implements INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
As I understand, this approach is something like Microsoft Dependency Properties, but I don't need all power of DependencyObject class, and I don't want inherit it.
With something like this I can use Binding, because it's enough to implement INotifyPropertyChanged, also we have no fields (as for me, i try to use properties smarter, than using fields directly (however, there is no problem to use Dictionary directly ^_^))
Sorry for my bad English... Not main language and not much practice.
Another Sample (after moving Methods to base class)
public class SampleClass : ViewModelBase
{
public string Key
{
get { return GetValue<string>(); }
set { SetValue(value); }
}
public DateTime Date
{
get { return GetValue<DateTime>(); }
set { SetValue(value); }
}
public bool IsSelected
{
get { return GetValue<bool>(); }
set { SetValue(value); }
}
}
No diff with Microsoft's WPF Property System.

Only feature you'll get with it is an ability to access property values via Dictionary.Get|Set methods.
You can get this ability with field based implementation of INotifyPropertyChanged. You can access property values by its name using dictionary, with property name to precompiled delegate mapping like it done in Yappi project.
var dateValue= Property<SampleClass>.Get<DateTime>(this,"Date");
Property<SampleClass>.Set<DateTime>(this,"Date",DateTime.Now);
Both can be rewritten as extension methods.

Nice idea, property bag without reflection and it will even work with obfuscation.
I don't see major problems with it but you may consider the following:
The prop parameter is optional so potentially a bug can be introduced by given a value in the call.
Value types will get boxed.
Access to the fields is relatively more expensive, can be a factor more expensive as you have much more code in a simple get (especially with boxing).
Dictionary takes more space than the number of properties you keep in (especially with boxing).
Each property also stores a string of the property name adding to the overhead.

C# Extension methods on "members"

I have some extension methods which could be used like this:
MyType myObject;
string displayName = myObject.GetDisplayName(x => x.Property);
The problem here is that it needs an instance, even if the extension method only needs the type MyType. So if there is no instance, it needs to be called like this:
string displayName = BlahBlahUtility.GetDisplayName((MyTpe x) => x.Property);
Which is not so nice anymore.
Is there a way to write better syntax for such cases?
What I actually want to do is this (pseudo language):
string displayName = MyType.Property.GetDisplayName()
Which of course does not work with C#.
But what about something like this:
string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
This is also not possible (after a lambda, a dot is not accepted).
Any ideas?
Edit:
My "favorite syntax" MyType.Property.GetDisplayName() seems to be misleading. I don't talk about static properties here. I know that this syntax won't be possible. I just tried to show in pseudo language, what information is necessary. This would be ideal, every additional stuff is just syntactical overhead. Any working syntax that is close to this would be great.
I don't want to write a certain extension method. I want an easy, readable and compile time safe syntax, using any language feature.

Have a look at the Express and Reflect classes in the Lokad Shared Libraries. Think they may help out with what you are trying to do. Read more here:
Strongly Typed Reflection in Lokad Shared
How to Find Out Variable or Parameter Name in C#?

From your comment: "I want an easy and compile time safe syntax to get information about members".
This is a very frequently requested feature and has been discussed in the C# team's meetings for about a decade, but has never been prioritised high enough to be included.
This blog post explains why:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/21/in-foof-we-trust-a-dialogue.aspx
So for now, you're just going to be fighting against a missing feature. Maybe you could post more information about your broader problem and see if people can suggest different approaches.
Update
Without more info about your problem this is just guesswork. But if you have a property that represents a value but also carries additional "meta" information, you could always represent that as a new type and use an "injection" step to set everything up.
Here's a suggested abstract interface to such a "meta property":
public interface IMetaProperty<TValue>
{
TValue Value { get; set; }
string DisplayName { get; }
event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged;
}
The value of the property is just another sub-property, with its type defined by the user.
I've put in the display name, and also as a bonus you've got an event that fires when the value changes (so you get "observability" for free).
To have properties like this in a class, you'd declare it like this:
public class SomeClass
{
public IMetaProperty<string> FirstName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<string> LastName { get; private set; }
public IMetaProperty<int> Age { get; private set; }
public SomeClass() { MetaProperty.Inject(this); }
}
Note how the setters on the properties are private. This stops anyone from accidentally setting the property itself instead of setting the Value sub-property.
So this means the class has to set up those properties so they aren't just null. It does this by calling a magic Inject method, which can work on any class:
public static class MetaProperty
{
// Make it convenient for us to fill in the meta information
private interface IMetaPropertyInit
{
string DisplayName { get; set; }
}
// Implementation of a meta-property
private class MetaPropertyImpl<TValue> : IMetaProperty<TValue>,
IMetaPropertyInit
{
private TValue _value;
public TValue Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
var old = _value;
_value = value;
ValueChanged(old, _value);
}
}
public string DisplayName { get; set; }
public event Action<TValue, TValue> ValueChanged = delegate { };
}
public static void Inject(object target)
{
// for each meta property...
foreach (var property in target.GetType().GetProperties()
.Where(p => p.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
p.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition()
== typeof(IMetaProperty<>)))
{
// construct an implementation with the correct type
var impl = (IMetaPropertyInit)
typeof (MetaPropertyImpl<>).MakeGenericType(
property.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()
).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
// initialize any meta info (could examine attributes...)
impl.DisplayName = property.Name;
// set the value
property.SetValue(target, impl, null);
}
}
}
It just uses reflection to find all the IMetaProperty slots hiding in the object, and fills them in with an implementation.
So now a user of SomeClass could say:
var sc = new SomeClass
{
FirstName = { Value = "Homer" },
LastName = { Value = "Simpson" },
Age = { Value = 38 },
};
Console.WriteLine(sc.FirstName.DisplayName + " = " + sc.FirstName.Value);
sc.Age.ValueChanged += (from, to) =>
Console.WriteLine("Age changed from " + from + " to " + to);
sc.Age.Value = 39;
// sc.Age = null; compiler would stop this
If you're already using an IOC container you may be able to achieve some of this without going directly to reflection.

It looks like you're trying to create a static extension method?
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Yesterday(); // Static extension.
Instead of
DateTime yesterday = DateTime.Now.Yesterday(); // Extension on DateTime instance.
If this is what you're trying to pull off, I do not believe it is possible in the current version of C#.

It sounds like you are integrating layers a little too tightly. Normally in this type of situation I would let the presentation layer decide the implementation of GetDisplayName() instead of making it an extension of the property itself. You could create an interface called MyTypeDisplayer or whatever you fancy, and let there be multiple implementations of it not limiting you to a single display implementation.

The issue here is that one cannot get a reference to non-static methods via instance MyType.[Member]. These can only be seen through a reference to an instance of the type. You also cannot build an extension method on-top of a type declaration, only on an instance of a type - that is the extension method itself has to be defined using an instance of a type (this T x).
One can however define the expression like this to get a reference to static members:
((MyType x) => MyType.Property)
One could do something similar to string displayName = ((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The first issue is guaranteeing that the compiler treats your (x=> x.Property) as an Expression rather than an action/func etc...
To do this one might need to do this:
string displayName = ((Expression<Func<PropertyType>>)((MyType x) => x.Property).GetDisplayName();
The extension method would then have to be defined like this:
public static string GetDisplayName<T>(this Expression<Func<T>> expression)
You might also have to define an extension method on top of Expression<Action>> and Expression<Action<T>> if your members are also methods.
You can do a dot after an Expression - this is where the Compile method would reside.
Appended:
I think the static call to the extension method in cases that one doesn't have an instance of the type one needs to do "reflection" on to determine a Members name would be the cleanest syntax still - this way you could still use the extension method when using an instance of a type and fall back to the static call definition => MyExtensionClass.GetDisplayName(TypeOfX x => TypeOfX.StaticMember OR x.Property/Member) when one doesn't have an instance

If you interface your properties, you could make the extension on the interface instead:
namespace Linq1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyType o = new MyType();
o.Property.GetDisplayName();
}
}
public class MyType
{
public IDisplayableProperty Property { get; set; }
}
public interface IDisplayableProperty
{
string GetText();
}
public class MyProperty1 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public class MyProperty2 : IDisplayableProperty
{
public string GetText() { return "MyProperty2"; }
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static string GetDisplayName(this IDisplayableProperty o)
{
return o.GetText();
}
}
}