struct
-
Remember that changing the values in a struct type only affect that particular instance as it is a value type. If you are planning on implementing a Get / Set accessor, you may want to think about using a class instead.
-
Remember that changing the values in a struct type only affect that particular instance as it is a value type. If you are planning on implementing a Get / Set accessor, you may want to think about using a class instead.
The Catalyst wrote:
Remember that changing the values in a struct type only affect that particular instance as it is a value type.
And so what happens in a class if it doesn't "only affect that particular instance"?
The Catalyst wrote:
If you are planning on implementing a Get / Set accessor, you may want to think about using a class instead
Why would a class be better in this instance? What is wrong with putting Get/Set accessors on a struct?
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
forgive me - I'm new to c# public struct lookupOjbect { string fieldvalue; public lookupOjbect (string fieldvalue) { this.fieldvalue = fieldvalue; } } lookupOjbect lookupObjectRow = new lookupOjbect(); When I want to assign a value to this object then 'fieldvalue' doesnt show with intellisense. e.g. lookupObjectRow.fieldvalue - doesnt show!
public members are a crime keep fieldValue private.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
The Catalyst wrote:
Remember that changing the values in a struct type only affect that particular instance as it is a value type.
And so what happens in a class if it doesn't "only affect that particular instance"?
The Catalyst wrote:
If you are planning on implementing a Get / Set accessor, you may want to think about using a class instead
Why would a class be better in this instance? What is wrong with putting Get/Set accessors on a struct?
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
And so what happens in a class if it doesn't "only affect that particular instance"?
It's the old Refference / Value type behavior. I think i worded it badly. Any change made to a class is reflected through all refferences, making changes to a struct only changes the one you are changing in the local context. (Barring special circumstances)
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Why would a class be better in this instance? What is wrong with putting Get/Set accessors on a struct?
I've never seen a Get / Set in a struct, at least, not in the standard CLR libraries. Tho i suppose there must be some, i can't imagine a use for them; All the com interop structs use public fields. From what i've seen, everything gets set in the ctor. and accessed through read only properties.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
And so what happens in a class if it doesn't "only affect that particular instance"?
It's the old Refference / Value type behavior. I think i worded it badly. Any change made to a class is reflected through all refferences, making changes to a struct only changes the one you are changing in the local context. (Barring special circumstances)
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Why would a class be better in this instance? What is wrong with putting Get/Set accessors on a struct?
I've never seen a Get / Set in a struct, at least, not in the standard CLR libraries. Tho i suppose there must be some, i can't imagine a use for them; All the com interop structs use public fields. From what i've seen, everything gets set in the ctor. and accessed through read only properties.
The Catalyst wrote:
I've never seen a Get / Set in a struct, at least, not in the standard CLR libraries.
Actually, virtually every struct I've seen in the BCL uses properties: Point, Size, Rectangle, to name a few, all expose their data via properties.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
The Catalyst wrote:
I've never seen a Get / Set in a struct, at least, not in the standard CLR libraries.
Actually, virtually every struct I've seen in the BCL uses properties: Point, Size, Rectangle, to name a few, all expose their data via properties.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
True, but they are all read only. None of them implement a set method, you have to create a new object if you want to use different values.
-
True, but they are all read only. None of them implement a set method, you have to create a new object if you want to use different values.
The Catalyst wrote:
True, but they are all read only. None of them implement a set method
That's wrong. Look at the Point.X for example. You can set it.
-
True, but they are all read only. None of them implement a set method, you have to create a new object if you want to use different values.
The Catalyst wrote:
True, but they are all read only.
Have a look at Rectangle.Width, Height, Size, and others.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
The Catalyst wrote:
True, but they are all read only. None of them implement a set method
That's wrong. Look at the Point.X for example. You can set it.
Still, pretty pointless. :D
-
public members are a crime keep fieldValue private.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane