We Keep Coding

What hack can I use to define a C# property with same name as class?

I'm using C# to make a .Net class library (a DLL) that will be distributed widely. I have an abstract class called Value, and I want it to have an abstract double property that is also called Value i.e.
public abstract class Value {
// Only accessible by subclasses within the project.
internal Value() {}
public abstract double Value {
get;
}
}
But the C# compiler won't allow this - I get the message "member names cannot be the same as their enclosing type", as discussed here.
I understand that the easiest thing to do would be to change the name of the property or the name of the class... But really I want the names to be like that, and I'm quite happy to implement an ugly hack to get it that way. So long as it works properly from external code that uses this DLL.
Unlike C#, VB.Net will allow me to define a property with the same name as the class, so I'm currently investigating merging my C# project with a VB project that defines the Value class (and its Value property) to make one DLL. This doesn't seem to be quite as straightforward as I was hoping.
Another option would be to re-write the whole project in VB... Not very appealing, but I'll consider it if necessary. I prefer C# over VB.Net but my priority is to get the built DLL the way I want it.
I'm wondering what other alternatives there might be. Any ideas for a good way to hack this?
EDIT: From the comments below it's clear that quite a number of people don't think much of the name "Value" for a class... Could anyone explain why it's so bad? I know it's not very descriptive, but I think it fits well in the context of my project. Is it because it's a keyword in C# that's used in property setters?

You cannot do that directly. You could, however, consider:
impelenting an interface with a Value member, and using explicit interface implementation (callers would have the use the interface, though)
renaming it in the class, and using an extension method to expose a Value() method, so obj.Value() works
rename it in the class, but expose it as Value in the subclasses
Ugly hack:
public abstract class ValueBase {
public abstract double Value { get; }
internal ValueBase() {}
}
public abstract class Value : ValueBase {
internal Value() {}
}
public sealed class ValueReal : Value {
public override double Value { get { return 123; } }
}

If your class is representative of a double (except for some additional metadata), you could opt for a conversion operator:
public abstract class Value
{
protected abstract double GetValue();
public static explicit operator double (Value value)
{
return value.GetValue();
}
}
Then your client code could access the metadata or cast an instance of type Value to a double. Depending on the metadata and usage, you might make the conversion implicit so you don't have to do an explicit cast, and you might define a conversion from double to Value.
There is a similar approach used by the System.Xml.Linq assembly where, for example, XElement can be cast to any primitive type as a means of accessing its "value".

As other people have said, this is not possible in C#.
Other people have criticised the name Value as a class, and while I agree it's likely too generic, I can see situations where it may make sense.
Bearing that in mind, if Value is an abstract class, perhaps ValueBase might be a decent, conformant, name? Much of the .Net framework (particularly WPF) uses XxxBase.
Another option to consider is prefixing the class name with the name of your project, as in FooValue.

Value is a terrible name for a class. It's extremely vague, so it does nothing to describe what a Value represents, and it clashes with the reserved word 'value'. You will find yourself using value = Value.Value, wondering why your code makes no sense, and eventually trying to fix a hideous bug that is a direct result of using 'value' instead of Value or value or _value or this.value. And what happens when you have to store another kind of arbitrary number? Will you call it Value2?
Name the class with a more specific and meaningful name and the problem will no longer exist. Don't fix the symptoms - fix the cause.
Even if you only rename it to "DataValue" or 'MySystemValue', you will be doing yourself a great service.

Bowing to popular opinion, I've decided to rename my Value class to DataValue. I'm pretty happy with that name, and it means I don't need any hacks to have the property called Value. So thank you very much to everyone for the feedback.
But, despite the useful answers, I still don't think the question has been answered ideally. None of the proposed solutions do exactly what was asked for, or at least not without side effects like the requirement for an otherwise-superfluous interface or public class. I should probably have been clearer in my question that I was perfectly happy to consider a hack that involved unsafe code, or modification of intermediate language or some such, as my priority was to get the public API of the DLL the way I wanted it, irrespective of whatever messy hacks might lurk hidden within it's source.
So here's the best solution that I could come up with. I haven't actually done it myself (no need now I'm using a different name for the class), but I don't have any reason to suspect that it won't work:
In the solution that contains your C# class-library project, add a new VB class-library project.
In the VB project, create the class (Value in my original example). In VB you'll have no problems adding a property with the same name as the class.
If your VB class has internal methods that need to be referenced by your C# code, reference the C# assembly using InternalsVisibleTo in your VB class.
You should now be able to reference your VB class from your C# project. But when you build the solution you'll get two separate DLLs: one for the C# code and one for the VB code. It looks like the ILMerge tool makes it very straightforward to merge the two DLLs into one (just one call from the command line).
So finally you should have a single DLL that contains the class with the property of the same name, and all the code in your C# project. Other projects that use that DLL (C#, VB, or any other .Net language) should not see your hacky effort - all they'll see is a coherent API with no superfluous public classes or interfaces.

C#: Making sure parameter has attribute

I have an attribute lets call it SomeAttribute and a class i need to make sure the class is passed a type which has SomeAttribute. So this is how i do it now:
public class Test()
{
public Test(SomeType obj)
{
if(!obj.GetType().IsDefined(typeof(SomeAttribute), false))
{
throw new ArgumentException("Errormessage");
}
}
}
But this means that i don't get any errors at compile time but somewhere at runtime, if obj does not have the attribute. Is there a way to specify in the method declaration that the parameter must have some attribute ? So i get errors i compile time when using the wrong parameters, or do i have to use an empty interface ?

There's no way to enforce an attribute at compile-time. You may want to reconsider your design - usually attributes are more about metadata, less about runtime behavior.
NDepend's Code Query Language is a static anlysis tool that could probably detect violations - but if you're not already using NDepend, I'd be hesitant to include it for this requirement alone.
Then again, lacking context of what you want to do - it's a bit like solving the other half your problem.

No, there's no way of requiring an attribute - but you could always write unit tests to scan through your assemblies and check that the appropriate attributes had been applied - assuming you can actually detect this requirement.
It sounds somewhat odd though - could you give some more details as to why you're using this scheme? Perhaps another approach would be more appropriate, such as another parameter to describe the extra data you're interested in.

C# protected field to private, add property--why?

In Visual Studio 2008 Team System, I just ran Code Analysis (from the Analyze menu) on one of my C# projects. One of the warnings produced was the following:
Microsoft.Design : Because field 'Connection._domain' is visible outside of its declaring type, change its accessibility to private and add a property, with the same accessibility as the field has currently, to provide access to it.
It's referring to the following field:
public abstract class Connection
{
protected string _domain;
}
I don't understand the reasoning behind the suggestion. This is what I think it wants me to do:
public abstract class Connection
{
private string _domain;
protected string Domain { get { return _domain; } set { _domain = value; } }
}
Two questions:
Did I understand correctly what the suggestion wants me to do, code-wise?
Why does it want me to do this?

Yes, I think you understood correctly - although in later versions of C#, there's a more concise way to write it:
public string Domain { get; set; }
Why? It's all about encapsulation. If you do as it suggests, you can later change the definition of the Domain property without affecting any calling code that uses that property. Since your class is public, and might conceivably be called by code that you didn't write, that's potentially quite important.

This is because if you ever wanted to change the field to a property in the future you would break any other assemblies that depend on it.
It is good practice to keep all fields private and wrap them in properties so that you have the option of adding validation or other logic in the future without recompiling all consumers (or in this case inheritors) of your class.

Yep. That's the suggestion. You shouldn't have any accessibility higher than private exposed as direct instance fields.
It's one of the main principles of OOD - encapsulation also referred to as 'data-hiding'.

Yes, you did correct the problem code wise.
It is about encapsulation. _domain is data about your object. Rather then exposing it directly so that any client has unfiltered access, you should provide an interface for them to access it. Practically this might be adding validation to the setter so that it can't be set to any value. It might seem silly if you are the only one writing code because you know how your API works. But try to think about things on a large enterprise level, it is better to have an API so that your object can be seen as a box that accomiplishes a task. You might say you will never have the need to add something like validation to that object, but things are done that way to hold for the possibility of it, and also to be consistent.

Your translation is correct. The same argument for can be made for using 'protected' properties as can be made for using 'public' properties instead of exposing member variables directly.
If this just leads to a proliferation of simple getters and setters then I think the damage to code readablity outweighs the benefit of being able to change the code in the future. With the development of compiler-generated properties in C# this isn't quite so bad, just use:
protected string Domain { get; set; }

In answer to your question... yes.
However, I would just use the auto-property syntax:
public abstract class Connection
{
protected string Domain { get; set; }
}

Basically, properties provide more than returning or setting a member. They allow you to add logic that could verify a proper input format, range validation, etc.
The selected answer from the link puts it best, "Properties provide encapsulation. You can encapulate any needed validation/formating/conversion in the code for the property. This would be difficult to do for fields."
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-IE/netfxbcl/thread/985f4887-92ae-4ec2-b7ae-ec8cc6eb3a42

In addition to the other answers mentioned here, public/protected members that begin with an underscore are not CLS-compliant, in that there is no requirement for .NET languages to support members with leading underscores, so someone inheriting from your class in a different .NET language may not be able to access that particular protected member.
I know, it probably doesn't apply to you, but it might be part of the reason for the code analysis warning.

Hiding a function

I have a class holding complex scientific computations. It is set up to only allow a user to create a properly instantiated case. To properly test the code, however, requires setting internal state variables directly, since the reference documents supply this data in their test cases. Done improperly, however, it can invalidate the state.
So I must have the ability, a member function, to set internal variables from the unit test programs. But I want to strongly discourage normal users from calling this function. (Yes, a determined user can muck with anything... but I don't want to advertise that there is a way to do something wrong.)
It would be nice to be able to tell Intellisense to not show the function, for instance.
The best solution I have at the moment is to just name the function something like: DangerousSet().
What other options do I have?
Follow-Up
I found Amy B's answer most useful to my situation. Thanks!
Mufasa's suggestion to use reflection was great, but harder to implement (for me).
Chris' suggestion of using a decorator was good, but didn't pan out.
BFree's suggestion on XML is also good, and was already in use, but doesn't really solve the problem.
Finally, BillTheLizard's suggestion that the problem is in the source documents is not something I can control. International experts publish highly technical books and journal articles for use by their community. The fact that they don't address my particular needs is a fact of life. There simply are no alternative documents.

You can use InternalsVisibleToAttribute to mark internal members as visible to your test assembly. It seems to shine when used in this context, though its not quite "friend".
Mark your DangerousSet function internal instead of public.
In Properties\AssemblyInfo.cs of the project containing DangerousSet:
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("YourTestAssembly")]
If you have two test assemblies for whatever reason, the syntax is:
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("TestAssembly1"),
InternalsVisibleTo("TestAssembly2")]

Decorate your method with this attribute:
[System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsable(System.ComponentModel.EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
This will hide it from Intellisense.
EDIT:
But apparently this has a rather significant caveat: "In Visual C#, EditorBrowsableAttribute does not suppress members from a class in the same assembly." Via MSDN.

Suppose you want to test this object by manipulating its fields.
public class ComplexCalculation
{
protected int favoriteNumber;
public int FavoriteNumber
{
get { return favoriteNumber; }
}
}
Place this object in your test assembly/namespace:
public class ComplexCalculationTest : ComplexCalculation
{
public void SetFavoriteNumber(int newFavoriteNumber)
{
this.favoriteNumber = newFavoriteNumber;
}
}
And write your test:
public void Test()
{
ComplexCalculationTest myTestObject = new ComplexCalculationTest();
myTestObject.SetFavoriteNumber(3);
ComplexCalculation myObject = myTestObject;
if (myObject.FavoriteNumber == 3)
Console.WriteLine("Win!");
}
PS: I know you said internal, but I don't think you meant internal.

It sounds like your real problem is in your reference documents. You shouldn't test cases that are impossible to encounter under proper use of your class. If users shouldn't be allowed to change the state of those variables, then neither should your tests.

You can also use reflection. Google search turned up Unit testing private methods using reflection.

Can your test code include a subclass of the calculations class? If so, you can mark the function protected and only inheritors will be able to use it. I'm pretty sure this also takes it out of intellisense, but I could be wrong about that.

What I've done in the past is I put XML Comments by the method and used the section to write in big bold letters. DON'T USE THIS METHOD or whatever. That way, if someone tried to use it, Intellisense would give them a nice warning.

Can I force subclasses to override a method without making it abstract?

I have a class with some abstract methods, but I want to be able to edit a subclass of that class in the designer. However, the designer can't edit the subclass unless it can create an instance of the parent class. So my plan is to replace the abstract methods with stubs and mark them as virtual - but then if I make another subclass, I won't get a compile-time error if I forget to implement them.
Is there a way to mark the methods so that they have to be implemented by subclasses, without marking them as abstract?

Well you could do some really messy code involving #if - i.e. in DEBUG it is virtual (for the designer), but in RELEASE it is abstract. A real pain to maintain, though.
But other than that: basically, no. If you want designer support it can't be abstract, so you are left with "virtual" (presumably with the base method throwing a NotImplementedException).
Of course, your unit tests will check that the methods have been implemented, yes? ;-p
Actually, it would probably be quite easy to test via generics - i.e. have a generic test method of the form:
[Test]
public void TestFoo() {
ActualTest<Foo>();
}
[Test]
public void TestBar() {
ActualTest<Bar>();
}
static void ActualTest<T>() where T : SomeBaseClass, new() {
T obj = new T();
Assert.blah something involving obj
}

You could use the reference to implementation idiom in your class.
public class DesignerHappy
{
private ADesignerHappyImp imp_;
public int MyMethod()
{
return imp_.MyMethod()
}
public int MyProperty
{
get { return imp_.MyProperty; }
set { imp_.MyProperty = value; }
}
}
public abstract class ADesignerHappyImp
{
public abstract int MyMethod();
public int MyProperty {get; set;}
}
DesignerHappy just exposes the interface you want but forwards all the calls to the implementation object. You extend the behavior by sub-classing ADesignerHappyImp, which forces you to implement all the abstract members.
You can provide a default implementation of ADesignerHappyImp, which is used to initialize DesignerHappy by default and expose a property that allows you to change the implementation.

Note that "DesignMode" is not set in the constructor. It's set after VS parses the InitializeComponents() method.

I know its not quite what you are after but you could make all of your stubs in the base class throw the NotImplementedException. Then if any of your subclasses have not overridden them you would get a runtime exception when the method in the base class gets called.

The Component class contains a boolean property called "DesignMode" which is very handy when you want your code to behave differently in the designer than at runtime. May be of some use in this case.

As a general rule, if there's no way in a language to do something that generally means that there's a good conceptual reason not to do it.
Sometimes this will be the fault of the language designers - but not often. Usually I find they know more about language design than I do ;-)
In this case you want a un-overridden virtual method to throw a compile time exception (rather and a run time one). Basically an abstract method then.
Making virtual methods behave like abstract ones is just going to create a world of confusion for you further down the line.
On the other hand, VS plug in design is often not quite at the same level (that's a little unfair, but certainly less rigour is applied than is at the language design stage - and rightly so). Some VS tools, like the class designer and current WPF editors, are nice ideas but not really complete - yet.
In the case that you're describing I think you have an argument not to use the class designer, not an argument to hack your code.
At some point (maybe in the next VS) they'll tidy up how the class designer deals with abstract classes, and then you'll have a hack with no idea why it was coded that way.
It should always be the last resort to hack your code to fit the designer, and when you do try to keep hacks minimal. I find that it's usually better to have concise, readable code that makes sense quickly over Byzantine code that works in the current broken tools.

To use ms as an example...
Microsoft does this with the user control templates in silverlight. #if is perfectly acceptable and it is doubtful the the tooling will work around it anytime soon. IMHO