Skip to main content

Properties C# 2.0 - Not Elegant Enough !!!

Prior to .NET 2.0, there wasn't the facility in C# to opt the visibility level for the get and set property or indexers. And i take my comment in my previous post that C# does not provide the facility of having different visibility levels for the get and set accessors. While that is partly correct, it is no more in C# 2.0.

And obviously it isn't in the easy and elegant way. Take a look at this code snippet:-

public bool LogToStdError
{
get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
protected set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}
I do not have to explain the code except there are some restrictions while having different visibility levels for the get/set accessors of a property.

1. You can provide an explicit visibility either for get or set. Hence the following code will throw an error:-

public bool LogToStdError
{
protected get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
protected set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}

2. The visibility thus explicitly specified must be a subset [restrictive than] of the property declaration.
For example, if the property declaration is protected, then the get/set accessor cannot be like say public. So the following code throws an error:-


protected bool LogToStdError
{
get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
public set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}

I feel that these restrictions are stupid, and this resulted because of the syntax. I just thought of some ideas for a bit elegant syntax for the property definition.

1. The get and set accessors individually have to specify the visibility level.

bool LogToStdError
{
public get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
property set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}

2. The property declaration syntax must not bear any visibility level unless the associated get/set accessors do not bear any. For example, in the property definition below, the get/set accessors are public:-

public bool LogToStdError
{
get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}

and as per this property definition, the get/set accessors are protected:-

protected bool LogToStdError
{
get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}

3. If there are visibility levels specified neither in the property definition nor in the accessors, then the default visibility level as specified for C# [I guess internal] will be applied for the property accessors. Hence the get/set accessors are internal for the following property:-

bool LogToStdError
{
get
{
return _log2StdError;
}
set
{
_log2StdError = value;
}
}
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go!CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object.void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); }Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr. As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference between …

out, ref and InvokeMember !!!

When I was working on the .NET reflection extravaganza thing that I explained in my previous column, i learnt one another interesting thing, that is about the Type.InvokeMember. How will pass out or ref parameters for the method invoked using Type.InvokeMember ? If you are going to invoke a method with the prototypeint DoSomething(string someString, int someInt);then you would use InvokeMember like this:-object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance,
null,
this,
new object[] {"Largest Integer", 1});or use some variables in the new object[] {...}. But what do you with the args if DoSomething takes out or ref parameters ?int DoSomething(out string someString, ref int someInt);Something like this will not work string someText = string.Empty;
int someInt = 0;
object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic …

Offering __FILE__ and __LINE__ for C# !!!

THIS POST USES SYNTAXHIGHLIGHTER AND HAS ISSUES RENDERING CODE ONLY IN CHROME
Not the same way but we could say better.
Visual Studio 2012, another power packed release of Visual Studio, among a lot of other powerful fancy language features, offers the ability to deduce the method caller details at compile time.
C++ offered the compiler defined macros __FILE__ and __LINE__ (and __DATE__ and __TIME__), which are primarily intended for diagnostic purposes in a program, whereby the caller information is captured and logged. For instance, using __LINE__ would be replaced with the exact line number in the file where this macro has been used. That sometimes beats the purpose and doesn't gives us what we actually expect. Let's see.

For instance, suppose you wish to write a verbose Log method with an idea to print rich diagnostic details, it would look something like this.
void LogException(const std::string& logText, const std::string& fileName, …