How to store all ctor parameters in fields
I'm learning C# and a thought came up when coding. Is it possible to automaticly store parameters from a constructor to the fields in a simple way without having to write this.var = var
on every variable to store them?
Example:
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
Is there a way to avoid writing this.varX = varX
and save all the variables to the fields if the names are the same?
c# oop
New contributor
|
show 3 more comments
I'm learning C# and a thought came up when coding. Is it possible to automaticly store parameters from a constructor to the fields in a simple way without having to write this.var = var
on every variable to store them?
Example:
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
Is there a way to avoid writing this.varX = varX
and save all the variables to the fields if the names are the same?
c# oop
New contributor
3
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
1
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use thethis
keyword for it: (i.e_var1 = var1
)
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
1
Write the parameter (e.g.int var1
). Selectvar1
and pressControl .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.
– mjwills
15 hours ago
2
Also, I don't thinkoop
tag is a right tag here.
– SeM
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I'm learning C# and a thought came up when coding. Is it possible to automaticly store parameters from a constructor to the fields in a simple way without having to write this.var = var
on every variable to store them?
Example:
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
Is there a way to avoid writing this.varX = varX
and save all the variables to the fields if the names are the same?
c# oop
New contributor
I'm learning C# and a thought came up when coding. Is it possible to automaticly store parameters from a constructor to the fields in a simple way without having to write this.var = var
on every variable to store them?
Example:
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
Is there a way to avoid writing this.varX = varX
and save all the variables to the fields if the names are the same?
c# oop
c# oop
New contributor
New contributor
edited 15 hours ago
croxy
2,84061938
2,84061938
New contributor
asked 15 hours ago
Fredrik PerssonFredrik Persson
693
693
New contributor
New contributor
3
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
1
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use thethis
keyword for it: (i.e_var1 = var1
)
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
1
Write the parameter (e.g.int var1
). Selectvar1
and pressControl .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.
– mjwills
15 hours ago
2
Also, I don't thinkoop
tag is a right tag here.
– SeM
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
1
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use thethis
keyword for it: (i.e_var1 = var1
)
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
1
Write the parameter (e.g.int var1
). Selectvar1
and pressControl .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.
– mjwills
15 hours ago
2
Also, I don't thinkoop
tag is a right tag here.
– SeM
15 hours ago
3
3
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
1
1
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use the
this
keyword for it: (i.e _var1 = var1
)– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use the
this
keyword for it: (i.e _var1 = var1
)– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
2
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
1
1
Write the parameter (e.g.
int var1
). Select var1
and press Control .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.– mjwills
15 hours ago
Write the parameter (e.g.
int var1
). Select var1
and press Control .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.– mjwills
15 hours ago
2
2
Also, I don't think
oop
tag is a right tag here.– SeM
15 hours ago
Also, I don't think
oop
tag is a right tag here.– SeM
15 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/
Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
If you define your variables first, you can use visual studios' "Quick actions" tool to generate a constructor for you; this gives you a choice of the currently-defined class fields to include.
using this will insert a constructor class with all your selected fields as parameters, and it will assign the values to the fields.
This will not reduce the amount of code, but it will cut back on the amount of typing you need
add a comment |
Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.
You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.
class TestClass
{
public string var1 { get; set; }
public string var2 { get; set; }
public string var3 { get; set; }
public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()
{
var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };
PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {
foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {
if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {
infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));
}
}
}
}
}
This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.
Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.
New contributor
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:
class MyClass
{
public int Var1 {get;set;}
public int Var2 {get;set;}
public int Var3 {get;set;}
public int Var4 {get;set;}
public MyClass(){
}
}
void Main()
{
var myClass = new MyClass
{
Var1 = 1,
Var2 = 2,
Var3 = 3,
};
}
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
add a comment |
In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.
However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.
The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).
The use of this
keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.
I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.
Eg var1 var2 var3
they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.
Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.
add a comment |
I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.
Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.
Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.
add a comment |
No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.
Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.
So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>
-like classes that you can inherit from:
public abstract class TupleBase<T1>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
this.Argument3 = argument3;
}
}
// Etc..
Then
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
becomes
class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>
{
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)
: base(var1, var2, var3, var4)
{
}
}
.
Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass
to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.
Alternatively, you could write
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);
}
}
, where .SetConstructorValues()
is a generic extension method
private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }
public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(
this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor
, params object constructorArguments
)
{
var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);
Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;
if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(
instanceType
, out constructorSetterAction
))
{
throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary! Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");
}
constructorSetterAction(
instanceToSetValuesFor
, constructorArguments
);
}
, where ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>
's for each Type
, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.
Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type
is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a virtual lookup table.
I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Fredrik Persson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54824786%2fhow-to-store-all-ctor-parameters-in-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/
Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/
Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/
Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#
No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/
Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#
answered 15 hours ago
Jonas HøghJonas Høgh
7,29311737
7,29311737
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
Do you happen to know why were primary constructors removed after all?
– Mibac
11 hours ago
1
1
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
I think the announcements are lost as they were posted on the now defunct Roslyn codeplex page, but I believe the feature was controversial due to differing opinions on what should be allowed inside the body of a primary constructor. Later it was decided that allowing primary constructors only on records was a better solution, as it leaves less room for ambiguity.
– Jonas Høgh
9 hours ago
add a comment |
If you define your variables first, you can use visual studios' "Quick actions" tool to generate a constructor for you; this gives you a choice of the currently-defined class fields to include.
using this will insert a constructor class with all your selected fields as parameters, and it will assign the values to the fields.
This will not reduce the amount of code, but it will cut back on the amount of typing you need
add a comment |
If you define your variables first, you can use visual studios' "Quick actions" tool to generate a constructor for you; this gives you a choice of the currently-defined class fields to include.
using this will insert a constructor class with all your selected fields as parameters, and it will assign the values to the fields.
This will not reduce the amount of code, but it will cut back on the amount of typing you need
add a comment |
If you define your variables first, you can use visual studios' "Quick actions" tool to generate a constructor for you; this gives you a choice of the currently-defined class fields to include.
using this will insert a constructor class with all your selected fields as parameters, and it will assign the values to the fields.
This will not reduce the amount of code, but it will cut back on the amount of typing you need
If you define your variables first, you can use visual studios' "Quick actions" tool to generate a constructor for you; this gives you a choice of the currently-defined class fields to include.
using this will insert a constructor class with all your selected fields as parameters, and it will assign the values to the fields.
This will not reduce the amount of code, but it will cut back on the amount of typing you need
answered 15 hours ago
ThisIsMeThisIsMe
711
711
add a comment |
add a comment |
Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.
You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.
class TestClass
{
public string var1 { get; set; }
public string var2 { get; set; }
public string var3 { get; set; }
public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()
{
var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };
PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {
foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {
if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {
infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));
}
}
}
}
}
This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.
Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.
New contributor
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.
You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.
class TestClass
{
public string var1 { get; set; }
public string var2 { get; set; }
public string var3 { get; set; }
public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()
{
var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };
PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {
foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {
if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {
infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));
}
}
}
}
}
This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.
Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.
New contributor
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.
You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.
class TestClass
{
public string var1 { get; set; }
public string var2 { get; set; }
public string var3 { get; set; }
public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()
{
var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };
PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {
foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {
if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {
infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));
}
}
}
}
}
This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.
Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.
New contributor
Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.
You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.
class TestClass
{
public string var1 { get; set; }
public string var2 { get; set; }
public string var3 { get; set; }
public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()
{
var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };
PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {
foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {
if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {
infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));
}
}
}
}
}
This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.
Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 15 hours ago
ShawnShawn
514
514
New contributor
New contributor
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
Clever trick, though I think it's worth noting that Reflection is expensive from a runtime cost perspective. Personally, any time I would want this, I'm working on a class that I really don't want to pay such costs. That being said,it certainly does the job!
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:
class MyClass
{
public int Var1 {get;set;}
public int Var2 {get;set;}
public int Var3 {get;set;}
public int Var4 {get;set;}
public MyClass(){
}
}
void Main()
{
var myClass = new MyClass
{
Var1 = 1,
Var2 = 2,
Var3 = 3,
};
}
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:
class MyClass
{
public int Var1 {get;set;}
public int Var2 {get;set;}
public int Var3 {get;set;}
public int Var4 {get;set;}
public MyClass(){
}
}
void Main()
{
var myClass = new MyClass
{
Var1 = 1,
Var2 = 2,
Var3 = 3,
};
}
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:
class MyClass
{
public int Var1 {get;set;}
public int Var2 {get;set;}
public int Var3 {get;set;}
public int Var4 {get;set;}
public MyClass(){
}
}
void Main()
{
var myClass = new MyClass
{
Var1 = 1,
Var2 = 2,
Var3 = 3,
};
}
The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:
class MyClass
{
public int Var1 {get;set;}
public int Var2 {get;set;}
public int Var3 {get;set;}
public int Var4 {get;set;}
public MyClass(){
}
}
void Main()
{
var myClass = new MyClass
{
Var1 = 1,
Var2 = 2,
Var3 = 3,
};
}
edited 15 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
NeilNeil
4,84211537
4,84211537
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
add a comment |
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
6
6
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
Object initializers are nice, but if you have some properties that must be initialized when creating an instance they are not a substitute replacement for constructor arguments.
– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
2
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
I dont see any difference here. The initialisation was centralised in the constructor , now every time you want to accomplish that logic you'll use this object initialiser syntax. This does not answer the question.
– Zack ISSOIR
15 hours ago
add a comment |
In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.
However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.
The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).
The use of this
keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.
I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.
Eg var1 var2 var3
they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.
Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.
add a comment |
In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.
However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.
The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).
The use of this
keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.
I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.
Eg var1 var2 var3
they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.
Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.
add a comment |
In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.
However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.
The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).
The use of this
keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.
I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.
Eg var1 var2 var3
they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.
Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.
In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.
However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.
The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).
The use of this
keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.
I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.
Eg var1 var2 var3
they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.
Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.
edited 14 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Alex LeoAlex Leo
7651213
7651213
add a comment |
add a comment |
I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.
Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.
Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.
add a comment |
I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.
Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.
Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.
add a comment |
I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.
Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.
Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.
I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.
Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.
Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.
answered 12 hours ago
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
2,78432248
2,78432248
add a comment |
add a comment |
No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.
Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.
So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>
-like classes that you can inherit from:
public abstract class TupleBase<T1>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
this.Argument3 = argument3;
}
}
// Etc..
Then
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
becomes
class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>
{
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)
: base(var1, var2, var3, var4)
{
}
}
.
Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass
to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.
Alternatively, you could write
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);
}
}
, where .SetConstructorValues()
is a generic extension method
private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }
public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(
this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor
, params object constructorArguments
)
{
var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);
Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;
if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(
instanceType
, out constructorSetterAction
))
{
throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary! Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");
}
constructorSetterAction(
instanceToSetValuesFor
, constructorArguments
);
}
, where ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>
's for each Type
, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.
Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type
is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a virtual lookup table.
I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.
add a comment |
No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.
Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.
So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>
-like classes that you can inherit from:
public abstract class TupleBase<T1>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
this.Argument3 = argument3;
}
}
// Etc..
Then
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
becomes
class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>
{
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)
: base(var1, var2, var3, var4)
{
}
}
.
Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass
to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.
Alternatively, you could write
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);
}
}
, where .SetConstructorValues()
is a generic extension method
private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }
public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(
this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor
, params object constructorArguments
)
{
var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);
Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;
if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(
instanceType
, out constructorSetterAction
))
{
throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary! Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");
}
constructorSetterAction(
instanceToSetValuesFor
, constructorArguments
);
}
, where ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>
's for each Type
, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.
Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type
is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a virtual lookup table.
I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.
add a comment |
No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.
Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.
So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>
-like classes that you can inherit from:
public abstract class TupleBase<T1>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
this.Argument3 = argument3;
}
}
// Etc..
Then
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
becomes
class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>
{
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)
: base(var1, var2, var3, var4)
{
}
}
.
Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass
to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.
Alternatively, you could write
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);
}
}
, where .SetConstructorValues()
is a generic extension method
private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }
public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(
this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor
, params object constructorArguments
)
{
var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);
Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;
if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(
instanceType
, out constructorSetterAction
))
{
throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary! Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");
}
constructorSetterAction(
instanceToSetValuesFor
, constructorArguments
);
}
, where ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>
's for each Type
, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.
Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type
is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a virtual lookup table.
I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.
No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.
Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.
So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>
-like classes that you can inherit from:
public abstract class TupleBase<T1>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
}
}
public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>
{
public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }
public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }
public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }
public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)
{
this.Argument1 = argument1;
this.Argument2 = argument2;
this.Argument3 = argument3;
}
}
// Etc..
Then
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.var1 = var1;
this.var2 = var2;
this.var3 = var3;
this.var4 = var4;
}
}
becomes
class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>
{
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)
: base(var1, var2, var3, var4)
{
}
}
.
Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass
to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.
Alternatively, you could write
class MyClass
{
int var1;
int var2;
int var3;
int var4;
public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){
this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);
}
}
, where .SetConstructorValues()
is a generic extension method
private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }
public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(
this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor
, params object constructorArguments
)
{
var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);
Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;
if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(
instanceType
, out constructorSetterAction
))
{
throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary! Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");
}
constructorSetterAction(
instanceToSetValuesFor
, constructorArguments
);
}
, where ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>
's for each Type
, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.
Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type
is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary
is a virtual lookup table.
I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
NatNat
60111327
60111327
add a comment |
add a comment |
Fredrik Persson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fredrik Persson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fredrik Persson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fredrik Persson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54824786%2fhow-to-store-all-ctor-parameters-in-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
As of my knowledge no! :(
– abhinavxeon
15 hours ago
1
No. but fields and arguments should have similar yet different names - for instance, having fields always begin with an underscore is one fairly common way to distinguish them from anything else. You would still need to explicitly set the fields in the constructor, but you wouldn't have to use the
this
keyword for it: (i.e_var1 = var1
)– Zohar Peled
15 hours ago
2
No, but just to speed things up you do something like this (in VS): docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/…
– Nanna
15 hours ago
1
Write the parameter (e.g.
int var1
). Selectvar1
and pressControl .
. Options will appear to write the assignment code for you.– mjwills
15 hours ago
2
Also, I don't think
oop
tag is a right tag here.– SeM
15 hours ago