automatic-properties

问题 In a discussion with a peer, it was brought up that we should consider using auto properties for all class level variables... including private ones. So in addition to a public property like so: public int MyProperty1 { get; set; } Our private class-level variables would look like this: private int MyProperty2 { get; set; } Instead of: private int _myProperty2; I'm on the fence about why someone would want to do this but I can't decide if my reluctance to accept this is because of my own

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 9 years ago . Possible Duplicate: C# 3.0 Auto-Properties - useful or not? My boss and I regularly argue about the benefits and disadvantages of using automatic properties. public string Name { get; set; } vs private string name; public string Name { get { return this.name; } set { this.name = value; } } For I am strongly in favor of using them because I have to write less code , I find it easier to understand the class when all the fields are

问题 Is is possible to auto increment an alphanumeric number with php so it looks like: AB001 AB002 ... ... BA001 ... ... ZZ001 This code will then need to be added to mysql, I was thinking a varchar(5). Cheers, 回答1: Try it and see $x = 'AA998'; for($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) { echo $x++,'<br />'; } EDIT Reverse of letters and digits $x = '000AY'; for($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) { echo $x++,'<br />'; } or reversal after ZZ999 $x = 'ZZ998'; for($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) { $x++; if (strlen($x) > 5) $x = '000AA'

问题 Does the automatic property of C# 3.0 completely replace the filed? I mean,I can directly use the property instead of filed as property serves as private backing field.(sorry,I understand like that only). int a; public int A { get;set; } 回答1: When you access the property from code - whether inside or outside the class - it is always accessed as a property. In most cases, this is unimportant - but it does mean that you can't pass it by reference, which you would be able to do if it were a

问题 In C# you can create getter/setters in a simpler way than other languages: public int FooBar { get; set; } This creates an internal private variable which you can't address directly, with the external property 'FooBar' to access it directly. My question is - how often do you see this abused? It seems like it has a high potential to violate encapsulation best-practices often. Don't get me wrong, I use it as appropriate, and partial variations of it for read-only write-only types of properties,

问题 I never use ivars. I only use properties -- sometimes assign properties with primitive types, and sometimes on a "private" class extension. I've seen the advantages of not using ivars in switching to ARC -- I have some borrowed code with lots of ivars that I still can't "ARC", since I don't know what needs to be retained. So I know some advantages of not using ivars, but what are the advantages of using ivars instead of properties? Note: I depend exclusively on the ivars that are

问题 This question already has answers here : What is the best way to give a C# auto-property an initial value? (22 answers) Closed 5 years ago . I came to know that C# 3.0 comes with a new feature of Auto-Implemented Properties,I liked it as we don't have to declare extra private varible in this (compare to earlier property), earlier I was using a Property i.e. private bool isPopup = true; public bool IsPopup { get { return isPopup; } set { isPopup = value; } } Now I've converted it into Auto

问题 I'm still pretty new to ObjC. I noticed that it's pretty standard everywhere to create your @interface myObj : NSObject { id delegate; NSDictionary *dict; } and then @property (nonatomic,retain) NSDictionary *dict; @property (retain) id delegate; --for example. I know how useful the auto code generation + clearer definition of @property is thanks to the Declared Properties page over at Apple. What I do not understand, however, is why it's standard for people to do both -- declare their

问题 So, with the brand new C# 6 we got those neat auto-property initializers. I thought I might as well take advantage of these to make more concise singletons than ever. Apparently someone else got that idea, too. public sealed class Singleton { public static Singleton Instance { get; } = new Singleton(); private Singleton() { /* some initialization code */ } } My questions are: How thread-safe it is? How lazy it is, or when the instance is actually created? (not a priority, but it would be good

问题 Is there any way to put contracts on automatically implemented properties in .NET? (And how if the answer is 'Yes')? (I assume using .NET code contracts from DevLabs) 回答1: Yes, this is possible - all that is needed is to add your contract condition to the [ContractInvariantMethod] method in your class, which then adds the equivalent Requires precondition to the automatic set ter, and a post condition Ensures is added to the get . From section 2.3.1 of the Reference As the example illustrates,