|
In most cases you dont need to do that.
read up on the "yield return" keyword, that will generate a ienumerable<t> for you
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Roger,
I have found great samples by using yield. 
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
New to C#, a simple question which my book does not cover.
If we do not specify the public/private access of get/set, then it is of the same as the public/private access to the property itself, but we can overwrite it.
For example, in the following code, in get method, when we do not specify public/private, it will be automatically the same as the property Abc, which makes get public, but in set, we can overwrite it to make it private?
public class MyList
{
class Foo
{
private int _abc;
public int Abc
{
get
{
return _abc;
}
private set
{
_abc = value;
}
}
}
static void Main()
{
Foo f = new Foo();
return;
}
}
thanks in advance,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Properties by their nature are public accessors for private/protected variables.
If you don't want an external object to be able to set a property, don't provide a set function. That makes it read-only from the calling object.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean "public accessors for private/protected variables.", John? Default are public to property, set and get?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to provide set method, just cut it off from property field, no need to put private accessor in front.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks adamzhang,
Good point. 
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
True if you're using a backing field, but if you're using automatic properties en 3.0/3.5, you'll need a private set for it to work.
class WithAutomaticProperties {
public String NoBackingField { get; private set; }
}
class WithBackingField {
private string backing;
public String HasBackingField { get { return backing; } }
}
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: What means "use an accessor to implement an interface"? Does it mean implement an accessor in a class which (the accessor) is declared in an interface?
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Rob,
Another confusion from this document is "You cannot use accessor modifiers on an interface or an explicit interface member implementation".
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75e8y5dd(VS.80).aspx[^]
"cannot use accessor modifiers on an interface" means can not use accessor modifiers like public/private on interface accessor declaration or on some class's accessor which implements the interface's accessor?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
"
When you use an accessor to implement an interface, the accessor may not have an access modifier. However, if you implement the interface using one accessor, such as get, the other accessor can have an access modifier.
"
Everything specified by an interface is public and you can't change that. (That's the meaning of "interface".)
When an interface specifies a property, it must specify at least one accessor. If the interface specifies only one, you can't modify the accessibiity of that accessor, but you may implement the other accessor and choose to make it non-public.
|
|
|
|
|
Great PIEBALDconsult!
But why it is "may not have an access modifier"? It should be must not, agree?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
George_George wrote: It should be must not,
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks PIEBALDconsult,
But when we implement a property's accessor in a class, and not using explicit interface implementation, we can use access modifiers. Right?
Here is my code, correct?
interface IFoo
{
int abc
{
get;
}
}
class Foo : IFoo
{
private int _abc;
public int abc
{
get
{
return _abc;
}
private set
{
_abc = value;
}
}
}
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry PIEBALDconsult,
I made a mistake. I think when we implement an accessor defined in an interface, whether or not using explicit implementation in the class, we can not add any modifiers.
But if in the interface, only one accessor is defined for a property, we can add modifier to the other accessor of the property (as shown in my above sample).
Any comments? Agree or?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm, yeah, the "explicit" doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your confirmation, PIEBALDconsult!
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi George,
I seldom dislike a question, but I dislike this one.
If you are not sure whether a method/property will be public/private when not specifying
it explicitly, then the next person looking at your code could well have the same doubts.
The only good remedy then is to make it explicit all the time.
That's what I do, I add private/protected/public or whatever is appropriate to every
single member in every single class.
If you ask me, having a default was a mistake by the C# language designers.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: having a default was a mistake by the C# language designers
I agree. And that's what I do too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Luc,
I totally agree with you, but sometimes we need to read some code by others, for example, the samples in MSDN.
I have written some samples and here are the learning results. Could you review whether I am correct.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75e8y5dd.aspx
1.
"You cannot use accessor modifiers on an interface or an explicit interface member implementation."
Means we can not put modifier on interface declaration of accessor, and also can not use modifier on the class implementation of the accessor (which is declared in interface).
2.
"When you use an accessor to implement an interface, the accessor may not have an access modifier. However, if you implement the interface using one accessor, such as get, the other accessor can have an access modifier, as in the following example:"
It means if interface only declare one accessor, either get/set, then in the class implementation, for the interface declared accessor, either get/set, we can not use any modifier, but for the other accessor, which is not declared in interface, either set/get, we can add modifier.
Both understandings are correct?
regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
