accessor

问题 public class SpecialObject { public string ID; [JsonIgnore] public List<SpecialObject> SpecialObjectCollection = new List<SpecialObject>(); [JsonIgnore] public List<string> tempObjectIDs = new List<string>(); [JsonProperty] public List<string> SpecialObjectIDs { get { return SpecialObjectCollection.Select(x => x.ID).ToList(); } set { tempObjectIDs = value; } } public SpecialObject() { } public SpecialObject(string _id) { ID = _id; } } static void Main(string[] args) { SpecialObject parent =

问题 I am using Ruby on Rails 4 and I have overwritten some default accessor method this way: class Article < ActiveRecord::Base def title self.get_title end def content self.get_content end end self.get_title and self.get_content methods return some computed value and look like the following (note: has_one_association is a :has_one ActiveRecord::Association ) def get_title self.has_one_association.title.presence || read_attribute(:title) end def get_content self.has_one_association.content

问题 I am using Ruby on Rails 4 and I have overwritten some default accessor method this way: class Article < ActiveRecord::Base def title self.get_title end def content self.get_content end end self.get_title and self.get_content methods return some computed value and look like the following (note: has_one_association is a :has_one ActiveRecord::Association ) def get_title self.has_one_association.title.presence || read_attribute(:title) end def get_content self.has_one_association.content

问题 I've found recently that for some types of financial calculations that the following pattern is much easier to follow and test especially in situations where we may need to get numbers from various stages of the computation. public class nonsensical_calculator { ... double _rate; int _term; int _days; double monthlyRate { get { return _rate / 12; }} public double days { get { return (1 - i); }} double ar { get { return (1+ days) /(monthlyRate * days) double bleh { get { return Math.Pow(ar -

问题 How does one represent a C# property (setter and getter accessors) in a UML Class diagram? Do you just write it as regular setter and getter methods? Or is there some other way of representing it? I'm interested in how accessors are represented in a class and interface in a UML Class diagram. 回答1: Some developers / analysts: (1) show properties as a very conceptual thing, and only show a single row per property. (2) Others, are more specific, and display 3 rows, the property, the "getter"

问题 I have a CoreData model in my iPhone app, which is linked to a SQL Database with more than 50k records. When I generate the records classes, Xcode uses the @dynamic directive for properties. I have a property named "ISFAV", NSNumber type (CoreData does not use BOOL or Integer, it uses object types). Being short, I change the ISFAV property when the user taps on a button in this way: if (![record.ISFAV intValue]) record.ISFAV=[NSNumber numberWithInt:1]; else record.ISFAV=[NSNumber

问题 Updated Question What, exactly, qualifies as a valid property name in Javascript? How do various methods of property assignment differ? And how does the property name affect property access? Note The answers to my original question (seen below) helped to clear some things up, but also opened a new can of worms. Now that I've had a chance to become a bit more familiar with JavaScript, I believe I've been able to figure a lot of it out. Since I had a hard time finding this information

问题 Updated Question What, exactly, qualifies as a valid property name in Javascript? How do various methods of property assignment differ? And how does the property name affect property access? Note The answers to my original question (seen below) helped to clear some things up, but also opened a new can of worms. Now that I've had a chance to become a bit more familiar with JavaScript, I believe I've been able to figure a lot of it out. Since I had a hard time finding this information

问题 This is a two part question. Background: We moved our C# application from VS2005 to VS2008 and in the process moved the application from .net 2.0 to .net 3.5. The transition went smoothly except for Unit Tests. First: Is the unit test framework based off Visual Studios or .NET? Second: This question is derived from the issues we have with the unit tests. We have internal classes that need accessors in order to unit test them. When the application was in VS2005, all the accessors were auto

问题 I know lots of coders use accessor methods to access some class fields which are private from other classes, but I was wondering why. And why they don't prefer protected fields witch are accessible only from classes of the same package instead of accessors? I mean if there is not a serious reason, it's just code waste. 回答1: When you only define methods to access a field, you are restricted by the methods. You cannot do something that there is not a method for. Consider this class: public