accessor

In C#, you can have more restrictive accessors on the accessors of a property like this: public List<String> Name { get; protected set; } How can I accomplish this when generating code using CodeDom? CodeDom doesn't directly support this. CodeDom dates from an era when C# and Visual Basic didn't support different accessibility on the get and set method, and hasn't been updated to support the new functionality. You will probably need to use a CodeSnippetTypeMember (though with a bit of ingenuity you could still use CodeDom to generate the getter and setter bodies). 来源： https://stackoverflow.com

I dont understand why some fields of my models clash. I dont have any foreign key so why would they clash ?! Here is my code: from __future__ import unicode_literals from django.db import models from django.contrib.auth.models import AbstractUser import datetime import uuid # Create your models here class Patients(AbstractUser): id = models.UUIDField(primary_key=True, default=uuid.uuid4, editable=False) first_name = models.CharField(max_length = 255) last_name = models.CharField(max_length = 255) dob = models.DateField(datetime.date.today) gender = models.CharField(max_length = 1) def _

A class contains a std::vector<int*> . External code needs read-only access to this vector, should not be able to modify the contents (neither the pointers or their contents). Inside the class, the values may change (e.g. double_values() , and so storing them as a std::vector<const int*> is not possible. Is there a way to return the std::vector<int*> as a std::vector<const int*> without making a copy? It feels like there should be, because const is simply operating at compile time to say what can and cannot be modified. Code: (compile with g++ -std=c++0x ) class ReadOnlyAccess { public:

Here is a code snippet from Apple's "Your First iOS Application" document. - (IBAction)changeGreeting:(id)sender { self.userName = textField.text; NSString *nameString = self.userName; if ([nameString length] == 0) { nameString = @"World"; } NSString *greeting = [[NSString alloc] initWithFormat:@"Hello, %@!", nameString]; label.text = greeting; [greeting release]; } I understand that self.username calls the synthesized set method (important since it has a copy flag). Why is textField.text and label.text not self.textField.text and self.label.text. Are the two equivalent? Is the self

Unless I am thoroughly mistaken, the getter/setter pattern is a common pattern used for two things: To make a private variable so that it can be used, but never modified, by only providing a getVariable method (or, more rarely, only modifiable, by only providing a setVariable method). To make sure that, in the future, if you happen to have a problem to which a good solution would be simply to treat the variable before it goes in and/or out of the class, you can treat the variable by using an actual implementation on the getter and setter methods instead of simply returning or setting the

In objective c, if the using the getter and directly accessing the ivar do exactly the same thing, no lazy loading code in the getter, all it does is returns the ivar, would you still use the accessor or access the ivar directly since there is no difference? Why? EDIT: I'm talking about inside the class. There is a small performance advantage to be enjoyed by using the ivar directly. However, to avoid confusion, I typically prefix my ivars with _ on the front, and then synthesize a property using @synthesize foo = _foo; which means I can either do [self foo] or _foo. It then becomes clearer in