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;
}
}
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Extension Methods - A Polished C++ Feature !!!

Extension Method is an excellent feature in C# 3.0. It is a mechanism by which new methods can be exposed from an existing type (interface or class) without directly adding the method to the type. Why do we need extension methods anyway ? Ok, that is the big story of lamba and LINQ. But from a conceptual standpoint, the extension methods establish a mechanism to extend the public interface of a type. The compiler is smart enough to make the method a part of the public interface of the type. Yeah, that is what it does, and the intellisense is very cool in making us believe that. It is cleaner and easier (for the library developers and for us programmers even) to add extra functionality (methods) not provided in the type. That is the intent. And we know that was exercised extravagantly in LINQ. The IEnumerable was extended with a whole lot set of methods to aid the LINQ design. Remember the Where, Select etc methods on IEnumerable. An example code snippet is worth a thousand ...
7 comments
Read more

Implementing COM OutOfProc Servers in C# .NET !!!

Had to implement our COM OOP Server project in .NET, and I found this solution from the internet after a great deal of search, but unfortunately the whole idea was ruled out, and we wrapped it as a .NET assembly. This is worth knowing. Step 1: Implement IClassFactory in a class in .NET. Use the following definition for IClassFactory. namespace COM { static class Guids { public const string IClassFactory = "00000001-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; public const string IUnknown = "00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; } /// /// IClassFactory declaration /// [ComImport(), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), Guid(COM.Guids.IClassFactory)] internal interface IClassFactory { [PreserveSig] int CreateInstance(IntPtr pUnkOuter, ref Guid riid, out IntPtr ppvObject); [PreserveSig] int LockServer(bool fLock); } } Step 2: [DllImport("ole32.dll")] private static extern int CoR...
3 comments
Read more

Wetting my feet in Android - Seinfeld Calendar

A couple of my colleagues and I huddled up to learn a bit of Android. I think I told you about that a short while back. We developed a very simple application - The Seinfeld Calendar . Seinfeld calendar, or otherwise called the habit calendar, is Seinfeld's productivity secret . The secret of achieving your goal is practising something, whatever your goal is, everyday and make it a habit. And mark it in your calendar each day you practice, and make sure you do not break the chain. Our application helps you keep track of your everyday tasks. Our application does not jog or meditate or quit smoking for you. You have to do your tasks. Our application provides the facility to create tasks for the habits you wish to pursue, which in certain cases like smoking means quitting. And then you mark each day in the calendar if you pursued your task, else you don't mark and break the chain. And no cheating! The application is in very nascent stage and does not provide you (fancy) s...
7 comments
Read more