When you implement an Interface in your Class the arguments are automatically named RHS as shown on MDSN https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/gg264387.aspx
For example, if I create IInterface as so:
Public Property Let Value1(strValue1 As String)
End Property
Public Property Let Value2(strValue2 As String)
End Property
And implement it, the class would look like this:
Implements IInterface
Private Property Let IInterface_Value1(RHS As String)
End Property
Private Property Let IInterface_Value2(RHS As String)
End Property
It's a best practice to name your arguments in such a way as to provide some level of abstraction and make it easier to read and write code. I can actually change the arguments to whatever I want in the class after I've implemented the statements, as shown below, but my question is why does this happen? Is RHS a leftover from another language or is there a particular reason it's named like this?
Implements IInterface
Private Property Let IInterface_Value1(strValue1 As String)
End Property
Private Property Let IInterface_Value2(strValue2 As String)
End Property
The above compiles fine if I manually change it.
rhs stands for right hand side of operator = and lhs for left hand side of =. Why is this named like this here? Maybe its something which comes from c++ conventions. By the properties you have consider this code:
Dim test As IInterface
Set test = New ClassTest
test.Value1 = "rhsVal"
The new string value is actually on the right side of the = so therefor rhs.
Related
Is using the Named Constructor Idiom possible in VB.NET? I've found many examples in C#/C++ but can't quite wrap my head around how to use it in vb.net. Seems like a better method of keeping my code readable when involving a lot of constructors with similar argument types.
I've never heard this term before, but after a quick search it sounds vaguely like the Static Factory Pattern. The idea is you make the constructor private and use a shared (static in c#) public function to create the new object.
Public Class Foo
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Shared Function CreateNew(param as Object) as Foo
Dim obj as New Foo()
obj.Prop = param
return obj
End Function
End Class
You sure can make Named Constructors in VB. The pattern uses a static (Shared in VB) factory method on the class itself, so that the method can be named. (Other Factory patterns involve using a separate Factory class to provide the static method.)
System.Drawing.Color is a simple example. The pattern is implemented underneath as a static (Shared) property. Since no arguments are necessary, the Get method of a Property works just fine:
Public Shared ReadOnly Property Chartreuse As Color
Usage:
Dim favoriteColor as Color = Color.Chartreuse
Or you can make static factory methods to do the same thing.
Public Class TheClass
Public Sub New()
End Sub
Public Sub New(input As String)
'do something with input
End Sub
Public Shared Function MyNamedConstructor() As TheClass
Return New TheClass
End Function
Public Shared Function AnotherNamedConstructor() As TheClass
Return New TheClass("Another Name")
End Function
End Class
As for whether this pattern is "better" than overloading constructors, that's really an opinion. Personally, I would just overload the constructors. As you can see in the example above, the constructors need to be there anyway.
I suggest using the Named Constructor pattern when you have only a few possible ways to construct your class/struct, but consumers of your class/struct will be using those few constructors often, and with different input values to those constructors (as in the System.Drawing.Color example).
The Name in 'Named Constructor' doesn't represent a name for the constructor itself, but for the object resulting from the constructor. If your named constructor can be used to create two objects that don't feel right to give the same name to, then don't give the constructor that name.
I'm trying to be able to pass a Type parameter to a function called ConvertList, and have that function create some instances of the specified type. So, if I passed in type Foo, the function would create new objects of type Foo and put the created objects into a custom List object (SLMR_OBjList).
The function is in a generic class that is defined:
Public Class BOIS_Collection_Base(Of T)
The function would accept types other than what is passed in the class definition. So, if we create an instance of BOIS_Collection_Base(Of MyTypeA) we may call the function ConvertList(Of MyTypeB).
I want the private variable _convertedList to be of a different type than the class. Is this possible? I can only seem to define it with (Of T).
Here is what I have so far:
Public Class BOIS_Collection_Base(Of T)
Private _convertedList As SLMR_ObjList(Of T) ' I can only seem to define this as (Of T), but want to make sure I can pass in a Type other than the Base(Of T)
Public Function ConvertedObjList(Of myT)() As SLMR_ObjList(Of T) ' Should this be (Of T) or (Of myT) since I want it to use whatever Type is passed in
For Each tempVar In Me.ObjList
Dim newitem As myT = Activator.CreateInstance(GetType(myT), tempVar)
' Next line won't compile, says on newitem 'Value of type 'myT' cannot be converted to 'T'
_convertedList.Add(newitem)
Next
_convertedList.Sort_Direction = Me.Sort_Direction
_convertedList.Sort_Expression_List = Me.Sort_Expression_List
Return _convertedList
End Function
Here is what I would like to be able to do:
Dim mainCollInstance As New BOIS_Collection_Base(Of MyTypeA)
....
'Code that populates the BOIS_Collection_Base.ObjList property with an SLMR_ObjList(Of MyTypeA)
....
' Now I want to take that ObjList, and cast all the items in it to MyTypeB
Dim newListObj As SLMR_ObjList(Of MyTypeB) = mainCollInstance.ConvertList(Of MyTypeB)
Is this possible? Am I going about it wrong?
In response to Plutonix:
If I define _convertedList inside the method, like this:
Public Function ConvertedObjList(Of myT)() As SLMR_ObjList(Of myT)
Dim _convertedList = New SLMR_ObjList(Of myT)
my errors go away, and the method does what I want, but _convertedList is no longer persistant in the object.
If you want to persist the list, then you can't really allow the consuming code to pass a different type for the list each time. That doesn't really make much sense, unless each time it's called, you only want the function to return the portion of the persisted list which contains objects of the given type. If that's the case, then you just need to declare _convertedList As SLMR_ObjList(Of Object) and then filter it and convert it to the correct type as necessary.
If, however, as I suspect is the case, the consumer will always be requesting that it be converted to the same type each time the function is called, then that output type is not really a property of the function call. Rather, it's a property of the whole class. In that case, you should make your class take two generic type arguments, like this:
Public Class BOIS_Collection_Base(Of T, TOut)
Private _convertedList As SLMR_ObjList(Of TOut)
Public Function ConvertedObjList() As SLMR_ObjList(Of TOut)
For Each tempVar As T In Me.ObjList
Dim newitem As TOut = DirectCast(Activator.CreateInstance(GetType(TOut), tempVar), TOut)
' Next line won't compile, says on newitem 'Value of type 'myT' cannot be converted to 'T'
_convertedList.Add(newitem)
Next
_convertedList.Sort_Direction = Me.Sort_Direction
_convertedList.Sort_Expression_List = Me.Sort_Expression_List
Return _convertedList
End Function
End Class
Based on the previous related question and an assumption that MyTypeA and MyTypeB inherit from the same class (never got an answer), you may not need Generics for this. At any rate, this should help with the ctor part of the question. I do not as yet see where Generics fit in since inheritance may do what you want already:
Class MustInherit BiosItem
Public Property Name As String
Public Property TypeCode As String
...
MustOverride Function Foo(args...) As Type
Overridable Property FooBar As String
' etc - the more stuff in the base class the better
End Class
Class TypeA
Inherits ABClass
Public Sub New
MyBase.New ' stuff common to all child types
TypeCode = "A" ' EZ type ID rather than GetType
...
End Sub
End Class
Class TypeB would be the same, but initialize TypeCode to "B". The same for C-Z. These allow you to poll the object rather than needing GetType: If thisObj.TypeCode = "A" Then.... Now, the collection class:
Public Class BIOSItems
Inherits Collection(Of BiosItem)
' inheriting from Collection<T> provides Add, Count, IndexOf for us
' most important the Items collection
'
End Class
Typing the collection as BiosItem will allow TypeA or TypeJ or TypeQ in it. As is, your collection will hold one Type only as it should be. This works because an item which is GetType(TypeA) is also GetType(BiosItem). See also note at the end.
Converting one item to another would seem to be something that would largely be handled by the NEW item being created or converted to. Since they are likely to be very similar then it can be handled by a constructor overload (if they are not similar, well we are well down the wrong road):
' a ctor overload to create the new thing based on the old things props
Public Sub New(oldThing As BiosItem)
MyClass.New ' start with basics like TypeCode, MyBase.New
With BiosItem ' coversion
myFoo = .Foo
myBar = .Bar ' copy common prop vals to self
...
Select Case .TypeCode
Case "B"
myProp1 = .Prop33 ' conversions
myProp3 = .Prop16 + 3.14
...
End Select
' then initialize stuff unique to this type maybe
' based on other props
If .PropX = "FooBar" Then myPropZ = "Ziggy"
End With
End Sub
Code to create, convert, store:
Dim varOldBItem As TypeB = myBiosCol(ndx) ' get old item
Dim varAItem As New TypeA(varOldBItem) ' call the ctor above
myBiosCol.Add(varAItem) ' add new item
myBiosCol.Remove(varoldBItem) ' delete the old if need be
If BOIS_Collection_Base is always supposed to contain MyTypeA, then type it that way (inheriting from Collection<T> still seems in order). If also MyTypeB objects are never added to the collection directly, but converted to MyTypeA first (Edit makes that less clear), then most of the above still applies, except for the inheritance. A ctor overload on MyTypeA could still take an old B object and create itself based on it. I'd be less inclined to do it via the ctor if they do not inherit from the same base class, but it could be done.
In my VB.Net code, I know that when I declare a property in a class I can do so using the shorthand of, for example, Public Property Prop1 As String and .Net automatically creates a private variable _Prop1 that I can refer to within my class.
I also know that I can refer to that variable within my code using either _Prop1 or by Prop1.
Now since I've always assumed that the preferred method is to use the private variable, I've always tried to make modifications / write code within my class referring to _Prop1. This is where my problem now comes in...
I have the following situation:
Public Class MyClass_Base
Public Overridable Property Prop1 As String = "val1"
Public Sub Test()
If _Prop1 = ....
End Sub
End Class
Public Class MyClass
Inherits MyClass_Base
Public Overrides Property Prop1 As String = "val2"
End Class
Basically, I define the property as Overridable in my base class, now when I get to the Test() subroutine, _Prop1 has the value of Nothing. However Prop1 has the correct value of val2.
Programming gurus out there, what is the correct way to deal with this situation?
Do I ignore the auto-created prive variable _Prop1 and work with the public Prop1 or is there something else I should add in / not even use the shorthand notation for this and write my own getter / setter logic to ensure things change as I would like?
Thanks!!!
I think you've answered your own question. You should absolutely not rely on hidden compiler mechanics in your own code. You're referencing a variable that you did not declare and there is no guarantee in the framework that this variable will be there (or work as you might expect, as you've discovered) - it's a hack to use it, so don't.
Unless you have a very good reason not to, code in the class should reference the public property just the same as code using the class would. If you're using automatic properties then there is no difference between doing that and using the private variable. It also has the benefit that if you do, at a later time, decide to implement explicit getters and setters that your code does not break and that your new getters and setters get called.
To explore the reason you get the unexpected result, in declaring
Public Overrides Property Prop1 As String = "val2"
You end up with two different _Prop1 variables - MyClass_Base._Prop1 and MyClass._Prop1. When you then call Test(), you are calling the base class method and that will refer to the base class's _Prop1 variable which has not been set to anything since you have overriden the implicit variable, getter, and setter in the subclass.
To illustrate the point, this is similar to :
Public Class MyClass_Base
Private _Prop1 As String = "val1"
Public Sub Test()
Console.WriteLine(_Prop1)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class MySubClass
Inherits MyClass_Base
Private _Prop1 As String = "val2"
End Class
Sub Main()
Dim class1 As New MyClass_Base
Dim class2 As New MySubClass
class1.Test()
class2.Test()
End Sub
Where your output will be :
val1
val1
In the above case MyClass_Base._Prop1 is always initialized, however, while in your case, it is not. In either case, the Test() method belongs to the base class so it will always refer to its own _Prop1 and not any variables of the same name declared in subclasses.
If you do need to refer to the private field, for whatever reason, you have to be very careful about how you do it (and the implications that follow). Any method that does so would need to itself be Overridable if subclasses are intended to work with their own private variables in the same way. Not to suggest that you should continue to use implicit variables, but to demonstrate :
Public Class MyClass_Base
Public Overridable Property Prop1 As String = "val1"
Public Overridable Sub Test()
Console.WriteLine(_Prop1)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class MySubClass
Inherits MyClass_Base
Public Overrides Property Prop1 As String = "val2"
Public Overrides Sub Test()
Console.WriteLine(_Prop1)
End Sub
End Class
Here we get the "expected" result because MySubClass overrides test to reference its own private field. Better to just stick to using the property names.
From the documentation on Auto Implemented Properties:
"Attributes specified for the property do not apply to the backing field."
This is one of those areas where C# and VB.NET need to be aligned.
C# (correctly) does not allow you to access the auto implemented property backing field (without some convoluted work). I honestly don't know what you can access this in VB.
So the rule here is even though you can access the backing field of an auto implemented property you really shouldn't modify this directly (nor should you need to)
If you need to then you should use a defined backing field (with initialisation) and explicit Get and Set
Is there a way to have one variable per class in vbscript?
If not what is the best way to emulate it? Prefixing a global variable declared next to the class?
Also is there a way to declare static/class methods(for a static constructor) or am I force to prefix a function?
In languages that support class-level/static data or methods you can
associate/bind data or methods explicitly to the set of objects defined by the class. So you can have Customer.Count and Product.Count and a plain Count (or ##Count) in Customer code will access the right number.
use such data or method without having an instance of the class (yet).
VBScript does not support static data or methods. You have to use global data or functions/subs and do the associating in your mind (perhaps with a little help from a naming convention). Accessing these 'static'=global elements without an object is trivial, but - obviously - should be done with care.
You can embed one or more singleton objects or code references (GetRef()) in your objects to bind them closer to the class, but that will increase the size of the instances.
You can do something like this to sort of emulate a static class:
Class Defines_
Public Sub DoSomethingUseful
End Sub
End Class
Dim Defines : Set Defines = New Defines_
...
Defines.DoSomethingUseful
This can be used to give you something analogous to constructors (really, factory methods):
Class Something
Private mValue
Public Property Get Value : Value = mValue : End Property
Public Property Let Value(x) : mValue = x : End Property
End Class
Class SomethingFactory_
Public Function Create(value)
Set Create = New Something
Create.Value = value
End Function
End Class
Dim SomethingFactory : Set SomethingFactory = New SomethingFactory_
...
Dim something : Set something = SomethingFactory.Create(5)
I have an interface IDigitalState defined as
Public Interface IDigitalState
ReadOnly Property Code As Integer
ReadOnly Property Name As String
End Interface
and a structure that implements this interface
Public Structure DigitalState
Implements IDigitalState
Private ReadOnly mCode As Integer
Private ReadOnly mName As String
Public ReadOnly Property Code As Integer Implements IDigitalState.Code
Get
Return mCode
End Get
End Property
Public ReadOnly Property Name As String Implements IDigitalState.Name
Get
Return mName
End Get
End Property
Public Sub New(ByVal code As Integer, name As String)
mCode = code
mName = name
End Sub
End Structure
What I wanted to do was declare a variable as a nullable type of IDigitalState. I understand why I cant do this because the interface may be implemented by a class which is not allowed to be nullable. Is there a way to define the interface so that it can only be implemented by a structure. I'm doubting it's possible but thought it would be worth looking into.
You can do this in combination with generics. For instance:
Sub Test(Of T As {IDigitalState, Structure})()
Dim something As T? = GetEitherValueOrNull …
End Sub
The key here is that you operate on a concrete (generic) type T which has two conditions:
it is a structure, and
it implements IDigitalState.
Or you can just use a normal variable of interface type, which can be Nothing, without the need for a Nullable.
No, there is no way.
However, you can type.
Dim nullableIDigitalState As IDigitalState = nothing
which would be declaring a variable of type IDigitalState as null. If you are talking about the Nullable<> generic that has a where constraint that limits to value types so it would only accept a structure variant of IDigitalState.
Am I missing your point?
The only situations in which it would be meaningful to restrict interface implementations to structure types are those in which the interface type is going to be used as a generic constraint, and never as a storage location type. In such situations, any code which requires type parameter to be a struct that implements the interface can specify that. Nothing would prevent classes from implementing the interface, but so what? A variable of type IDigitalState could hold a reference to a class that implements that interface, but could not be passed as a generic parameter of type T As {Structure,IDigitalState}, so code which requires a structure-type implementation wouldn't care that such things might exist.
Note, btw, that storing a struct that implements IDigitalState into a variable of type IDigitalState will effectively create a new class object with fields matching those of the structure, and store a reference to that object. If you wish to ensure that a struct which implements an interface, will behave like a struct rather than a class, you need to pass or hold it in a variable with an interface-constrained generic type, rather than in a variable of the interface type.