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

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 …

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 …

jqGrid: Handling array data !!!

This post is primarily a personal reference. I also consider this a tribute to Oleg, who was fundamental in improving my understanding of the jqGrid internals - the way it handles source data types, which if I may say led him in discovering a bug in jqGrid.

If you are working with local array data as the source for jqGrid, meaning you will get the data from the server but want the jqGrid not to talk to the server anymore, and want to have custom handling of the edit functionality/form and delete functionality, it is not going to be straightforward - you need to have a decent understanding of how jqGrid works, and you should be aware of the bug Oleg pointed in our discussion. I repeat this is all about using jqGrid to manage array data locally, no posting to server when you edit or delete, which is where the bug is.

$('#grid').jqGrid('navGrid', '#pager', { recreateForm: true, add: false, search: false, refresh: false, …