If I implement IEquatable(Of T) on my class and let Visual Studio (2010) auto-generate the required Equals method, I get this:
Public Function Equals1(ByVal other As Foo) As Boolean _
Implements System.IEquatable(Of Foo).Equals
End Function
Notice the extra 1 necessary due to the naming conflict with Object.Equals. Are there any conventions/suggestions for naming this function something other than Equals1? Because frankly, that's rather ugly.
Defining a method with the same name as a base-type method but a different signature can have two different effects:
It may make the base-type method inaccessible through the derived type, so that only the definitions in the derived type will be considered.
It may add the new method definitions to list of definitions imported from the base type.
There are some scenarios where the first option is correct, and there are some where the second option is correct. Rather than guessing which option should be used, VB.NET requires that when creating a function with the same name as a base-type function but a different signature, the programmer must either the Shadows keyword to specify the first behavior, or the Overloads keyword to specify the second.
Although Microsoft auto-generates interface implementations using public methods, in some cases one may want to have a method only be available through an interface. Because VB allows the name of the function to be specified independently from the name of the implemented interface member one can make interface member be accessible only via the implementation by making it private and giving it any name which isn't going to conflict with anything else used within the class itself (if the method is private, conflicts with derived-class members won't be an issue).
Pick an arbitrary non-conflicting name while leaving the declaration as public is probably almost never the right course of action [one should either change the declaration to private, change the declaration to Protected Overridable and change the name to something better (e.g. SomeMember_Impl), or else change the name to match the interface member and add either an Overloads or Shadows keyword as appropriate. In the case of IEquatable(Of T).Equals, the Overloads keyword is probably the best approach.
Incidentally, IEquatable(Of T) should generally only be implemented by sealed classes (or structures, which are inherently sealed). It can provide a big performance win when applied to structures (it saves a boxing operation every time it's used), and a small performance win when applied to sealed classes (there's no need to check the type of its operand). When applied to unsealed types, it's difficult to ensure that for all derivative types the semantics of IEquatable(Of T).Equals(T) will match those of Equals(Object) except by having the former method chain to the latter. Such chaining would negate any performance advantage that could have been gained by implementing IEquatable(Of T) in the first place.
You should be able to name it Equals(); that will merely overload the Equals(Object) method.
You may need to add the Overloads keyword.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Are static local variables bad practice?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Consider the following functionally two code snippets in a single-threaded environment. Assuming there are no other methods in Foo I believe these are functionally identical.
Class Foo
Private _Bar As Bar
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar As Bar
Get
If IsNothing(_Bar) Then
_Bar = New Bar
End If
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
And
Class Foo
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As Bar
Get
Static _Bar As New Bar
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
Today I was challenged on code following the 2nd method because "the New will be called each time". I already know that is false, but the primary objection was with regards to the use of Static. I found several references to Static variables indicating that they may be dangerous, but they were all talking about Java. However, I was not able to find any good explanations as to why.
How are these two methods different? Is the 2nd method dangerous? If so, why?
Static in VB.Net is not that same as static in Java, C#, C, or C++. VB.Net's analog to that construct is Shared. The documentation on the Static keyword is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
In particular, I'd like to point out this snippet:
Behavior
When you declare a static variable in a Shared procedure, only one copy of the static variable is available for the whole application. You call a Shared procedure by using the class name, not a variable that points to an instance of the class.
When you declare a static variable in a procedure that isn't Shared, only one copy of the variable is available for each instance of the class. You call a non-shared procedure by using a variable that points to a specific instance of the class.
It's likely the objection comes from believing that Static always behaves like the first paragraph, even in instance methods, when we can see here that it's clearly documented that this is not the case.
Instead, Static allows you to declare a variable whose lifetime-scope is that of the class instance, but whose access-scope is limited to a single method. It's a way to narrow the potential scope of a variable, and therefore is a good thing. Additionally, variables declared as Static are rewritten by the compiler to be protected via the Monitor class (at least for the Shared version), giving them a measure of thread-safety. In other words, a variable declared as Static is more likely to have any needed locking done verses a similar class-scoped variable.
In this particular case, though, I fail to see the point. You don't really gain anything beyond an auto-implemented property like this:
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As New Bar()
This probably is confusing the VB.net concepts of Static and Shared because some languages use the keyword Static to mean what VB uses Shared for: a variable/field/property/method that is shared or common to all instances of a class.
But Static doesn't mean that in VB. Instead it means a routine-local variable that persists beyond the invocation of the routine (i.e., its lifetime is object-scoped rather than routine invocation-scoped).
REF: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
So in VB, Static means "routine-scoped visibility, object-scoped lifetime".
Whereas Shared means "class-scoped visibilty, class/program-scoped lifetime".
I would avoid the second approach if for no other reason than the fact that C and C# have a static keyword whose meaning is totally different from that of the VB.NET Static keyword. I generally dislike language features which look like features of other languages but aren't. If it's necessary to use a language feature despite its unfortunate resemblance to the other language's feature, I'll use it, but the VB.NET static keyword doesn't really add much here. Effectively, it asks the compiler to make the variable Private field, give it an arbitrary name which differs from that of any other field, and replace all references to the variable's given name within the method with references to the invented name.
Conceptually, use of such "localized" fields may be regarded as dubious because while one may expect that a field will only need to be used within one method, that may turn out not to be true. I wouldn't worry too much about that issue in vb.net, however, because a Static variable may easily be turned into an ordinary private field if the need arises. If when that need does arise a field exists with the same name, one may easily rename the Static variable before moving it.
How do I get using reflection the most generic type from a shared constructor in the base class :
Public Class Foo()
Shared Sub New()
'Here we have code to get the type!
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType
End
End Class
Public Class Bar()
Inherits Foo
End Class
I expect the result to be Bar type and not the Foo. Is it possible?
First, it seems you want to find the most derived type (or the most specific type), not the most generic type -- which would mean rather the opposite (either, that generics are involved, or that the most general type is being sought).
While it may be possible to do this using reflection, your need for it might indicate that you have your class design wrong, or less than optimal.
First, constructors aren't virtual methods, so inside a constructor (IIRC), the Me object reference is of the type that contains this constructor.
What you could do is reflect over all of an assembly's types and find all those that are derived from Foo. You would then have to build a inheritance graph of these types and assign a number to each saying how far it is derived from Foo (number of inheritance levels). You could then check the Me object reference against all of the types you've identified (see if Me can be cast to each of them), and from that subset, choose the one type with the largest number of inheritance levels.
I hope that from this, you'll see that it's probably not worth the effort. It would be more interesting, and probably more helpful, to re-think why you need to do this, and if possible, find a way to avoid it.
Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X?
For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it.
So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties.
Is there another naming convention for this kind of method?
Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.
I would recommend something like generateTable() instead of setTable(). This provides a situation where the name of the method clearly denotes what it does.
I would probably still use a setTable() method to actually set the property, though. Ideally, you could open the possibility of setting a previously defined table for further flexibility.
Yes, setX() is primarily used for setting a field X, though setX() may have some additional code that needs to run in addition to a direct assignment to a field. Using it for something else may be misleading to other developers.
I would definitely recommend against having a public setTable() and would say that setTable() could be omitted or just an unused private method depending upon your requirements.
It sounds like the activity to generate the table is more of a view of other properties on the object, so you might consider moving that to a private method on the object like generateHtmlTable(). This could be done during construction (and upon updates to the object) so that any subsequent calls to getTable() will return the the appropriate HTML.
This is kind of two questions (one more specific than the other).
If I have a method like this:
Public Function Blah(String Foo)
End Function
Can I qualify Foo against another type (for instance can I require that Foo be a String that also implements IInterface?).
I'm imagining something vaguely similar to this:
Public Function Blah(RandomObject Foo Where RandomObject Is IInterface)
End Function
Additionally, is there any way to qualify the Type parameter?
For instance, can I require that the Type I take as a parameter is of a particular class tree?
Public Function Blah(Type t Where Type Of String)
End Function
I should mention that I am using this in the context of a property of an attribute so the class declaration itself cannot be generic (this is purely focused on qualifying a method parameter rather than typing a class and its methods).
This looks like a case for generics to me. Your method signature would be something like this in VB.NET:
Public Function Blah(Of T As {IImplementedByT})(Foo As T)
This specifies that Foo can be of any type T as long as T implements IImplementedByT. Note that this method can be generic without the containing class needing to be generic. If you want T to be a class derived from RandomClass that also implements this interface, you can specify both constraints:
Public Function Blah(Of T As {RandomClass, IImplementedByT})(Foo As T)
You can do the first for a generic type, but not for a nongeneric type. Basically a variable (including a parameter) can only have one compile-time type, so you can't say "it has to be a Foo and an IBar - you have to pick one or the other. Generics let you say "it has to be some type T where T derives from Foo and implements IBar" though.
Generics is a huge topic - too big to cover in a Stack Overflow answer - but Microsoft has a good introductory article.
As for your second question - no, you can't do that. The Type value will only be known at execution time, so it has to be an execution time check. You can write that check fairly easily though, with Type.IsAssignableFrom.
Not sure what you mean by "Foo be a String that also implements IInterface".
string class is sealed, so you can't inherit from it & hence you cant implement an interface on top of it.
I hope I am on the right page.
What is a realistic use for VB.Net's MyClass keyword?
I understand the technical usage of MyClass; I don't understand the practical usage of it in the real world.
Using MyClass only makes sense if you have any virtual (overridable) members. But it also means that you want to ignore the overridden implementations in sub classes. It appears to be self-contradicting.
I can think of some contrived examples, but they are simply bad design rather than practical usage.
MyClass, from a compiler's perspective, is a way to omit a callvirt instruction in favor of a call instruction. Essentially when you call a method with the virtual semantics (callvirt), you're indicating that you want to use the most derived variation. In cases where you wish to omit the derived variations you utilize MyClass (call). While you've stated you understand the basic concept, I figured it might help to describe it from a functional viewpoint, rather than an implicit understanding. It's functionally identical to MyBase with the caveat of scope being base type with MyBase, instead of the active type with MyClass.
Overriding virtual call semantics, at the current point in the hierarchy, is typically a bad design choice, the only times it is valid is when you must rely on a specific piece of functionality within your object's hierarchy, and can't rely on the inheritor to call your variation through a base invocation in their implementation. It could also rely on you as a designer deciding that it's the only alternative since you overrode the functionality further in the object hierarchy and you must ensure that in this corner case that this specific method, at the current level of the inheritance tree, must be called.
It's all about design, understanding the overall design and corner cases. There's likely a reason C♯ doesn't include such functionality since on those corner cases you could separate the method into a private variation the current level in the hierarchy invokes, and just refer to that private implementation when necessary. It's my personal view that utilizing the segmentation approach is the ideal means to an end since it's explicit about your design choice, and is easier to follow (and it's also the only valid means in languages without a functional equivalent to MyClass.)
Polymorphism
I'm sorry I don't have a clear code example here but you can follow the link below for that and I hate to copy the MSDN Library description but it's so good that it's really hard to rewrite it any clearer.
"MyClass provides a way to refer to the current class instance members without them being replaced by any derived class overrides. The MyClass keyword behaves like an object variable referring to the current instance of a class as originally implemented."
Also note that you can't use MyClass in a shared method.
A good example of implementing Polymorphism via MyClass is at http://www.devarticles.com/c/a/VB.Net/Implementing-Polymorphism-in-VB.Net/
I guess the only case I could see a use for it, would be if you want the base condition, and an inherited condition at the same time? I.E. where you want to be able to inherit a member, but you want the ability to access a value for that member that hasn't been changed by inheritance?
You need it if you want to call a chained constructor.
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer)
MyClass.New(accountKey, Nothing)
End Sub
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer, ByVal accountName As String)
MyClass.New(accountKey, accountName, Nothing)
End Sub
Public Sub New(ByVal accountKey As Integer, ByVal accountName As String, ByVal accountNumber As String)
m_AccountKey = accountKey
m_AccountName = accountName
m_AccountNumber = accountNumber
End Sub