In C++, it is possible to do:
int x;
int& foo = x;
// foo is now a reference to x so this sets x to 56
foo = 56;
But is an equivalent possible in Visual Basic .net (VB.net)?
I am aware of the ByRef term in VB.net but I have only seen (and by extensive research) this in passing parameters by reference to functions/subroutines, so that the function modifies the same variable declared by the calling code.
But I haven't seen ByRef used to declare variables (as class members or local variables). I have tried to use ByRef to do such a declaration but I get compiler errors for each ordering of the declaration I try.
The reason why I want to do this is because I want a class instance to be able to refer to a variable declared in another class instance.
Specifically, I am working on some existing VB.net code where program logic is mixed up with UI logic in VB.net form classes. I want to separate the program logic out of the form code so that it can be more easily reused. To do this I need the program logic code to be able to 'talk' to the form code so I need access to its variables.
I am using Visual Studio 2010 Express with VB.net and would prefer to remain within this environment even though I am aware that full Visual Studio has extended capabilities.
Pointers exist but they're called object references
(Now other posters, please don't quibble with me about the actual differences here. I am talking about the high level task the OP wants to accomplish)
Obviously you can't do literally what you've said - that is, surgically manipulate one member. But if you have control of the code, you can do almost as well. And from what you describe is your problem, this method will be much better, as you can pass references to an object that has many members you wish to update, instead of having to pass many individual pointers.
First define a class:
Class MyScreenValues
' Properties will work... using public fields for brevity
Public TextBox1Value as String
Public SpinControl1Value as Integer
public CheckBox1Value as Boolean
End Class
Now the equivalent of the code you posted:
Dim x as new MyScreenValues 'int x;
dim foo as MyScreenValues = x 'int& foo = x;
'// c++: foo is now a reference to x so this sets x to 56
'// .net: foo is now a reference to x so this sets x.SpinControl1Value to 56
foo.SpinControl1Value = 56;
If what you're doing is trying to pass pointers to, say, every control on your form's value to a sub, like so:
Button1_Click(...
Dim MyObject as new BusinessObject
MyObject.DoSubmit(TextBox1.Text, SpinButton1.Value, CheckBox1.Checked)
You can use the method provided by superbDeveloper, and use the ByRef keyword on the definition of the DoSubmit Sub:
Public Sub DoSubmit(ByRef Name as String, ByRef Age as Integer, ByRef Employed as boolean)
... business logic...
However this just gives you a 2-layer separation. Look into MVP, MVC, etc - however consider submitting the entire view worth of data. It's a lot of research you you may settle with what you have now. For example your business logic will be firing events on the form as it changes the form values (well, actually, they won't fire until the sub exits, due to the way VB deals with byref properties [=temp variable], but it needs to be considered).
You can also map an object's properties to a Form's properties with other libraries. Check out VALUE INJECTOR on the web. It can take a webform/winform and maybe even a WPF form and map the control values to and from an object you have predefined. Excellent for complete separation.
Hi well not sure about VB.NET but I know how do it in C#, therefore I did the solution in C# and then i used a C# to VB.NET convertor to get the VB.NET code. maybe it might help you:
http://www.developerfusion.com/tools/convert/csharp-to-vb/
C# Code
protected void TestFoo()
{
string strFooA = string.Empty;
GetFoo(ref strFooA);
Response.Write(strFooA);
}
private void GetFoo(ref string strFooA)
{
strFooA = "FooA";
}
VB.NET converted
Protected Sub TestFoo()
Dim strFooA As String = String.Empty
GetFoo(strFooA)
Response.Write(strFooA)
End Sub
Private Sub GetFoo(ByRef strFooA As String)
strFooA = "FooA"
End Sub
Pointers don't exist in the .NET framework like they do in C/C++, so you won't be able to directly achieve what you want.
There are some possible solutions on this SO page
See #NathanW answer on there:
If you are using VB the only thing that is really close to a pointer is a IntPtr. If you have access to C# you can use unsafe C# code to do pointer work.
In Addition
If you want to be able to use references then you can achieve this by using a class:
Private Class RefClass
Public x As Integer
End Class
Then you can reference one from the other:
Dim bar As New RefClass
Dim foo As RefClass = bar
bar.x = 45
Debug.WriteLine(bar.x) 'outputs 45
Debug.WriteLine(foo.x) 'outputs 45
You may already know enough to get the job done from the info at http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/topic/135354-reference-types-value-types-byval-byref/ ; however, your remark "ByRef is not required in declaration of local variables (and possibly class variables)" left me wondering if there's some confusion here.
For starters, the C++ example above, int x; int& foo = x; confuses what is meant by a "reference". My C++ isn't very strong, but, semantically speaking, I believe this C++ reference operates more like an aliasing mechanism. In VB (and C#) a reference operates like an identification code that locates an instance of a class in memory. Neither VB or C# has anything like the C++ reference type.
By now, you probably already know you can pass in your Form as a ByVal parameter, and change its properties and fields without problem. (ByVal is the default in VB.NET, so you don't even need to use it - in VB6 ByRef was the default.) If you're happy enough, you can skip the rest. But, yeah, in the case of .NET Reference variables, assuming:
Dim objA as New MyClass()
Dim objB as MyClass = objA
Then objA and objB both reference the very same instance of MyClass. You can modify via objA and objB, and you can read back from either objA or objB, because they each affect the very same instance. You can pass either objA or objB into some subroutine Foo with parameter objC As Object passed ByVal (i.e. Sub Foo(ByVal objC As Object) ) and Foo can then modify that same instance too.
The ByRef of VB and the ref of C# indicate a modifiable parameter, which means some "identification code" reference is passed instead of a value. Yet this ByVal vs. ByRef thing is clear as mud because in .NET there is a distinction made between "Value" types and "Reference" types that confuses many on whether a ByRef or ref is needed or not.
Visual Basic and C# dichotomizes variables (and data types) into two species: the "Value" (or "Structure"), and the "Reference" (or "Class").
The "Value" type means an actual collection of bits that represents an Integer, or a Boolean, or even a bitmap, or some other kind of object. In old school parlance, this is the "image" of the instantiation of an object. It is the state space of the object. It is what makes an object essentially itself, independent of where in memory it may be.
The "Reference" type means a code (which might look like an integer or a pointer) that somehow indicates the data type of the object and where in memory it resides. The computer will interpret a "Reference" to obtain the actual image of the object (i.e. its "Value").
When a "Value" parameter is passed ByVal, that means a new object is created that is in the identical image of the original expression being passed, and it is upon this copy that the function or method operates. The original image of the "Value" cannot be affected.
When a "Value" parameter is passed ByRef, that means a new "Reference" variable is created, and that "Reference" variable will contain the information that will interpret back to the image of the original "Value". Now the original image of the "Value" can be changed.
When a "Reference" parameter is passed ByVal, its "identification code", which gets interpreted back to the actual image of the object, gets copied. It is upon this copy of the code that the function or subroutine or method operates. This copy still points to the actual image of the object. Which means that an object of a Reference variable that is passed by ByVal can still have its image (i.e. its "Value") changed. However, the code of the original "Reference" itself cannot be changed.
(Note that the String type is an odd duck: It will behave as if it were a "Value" parameter even though it is in fact a "Reference" type. Hence a String passed ByVal will not be affected in the same way any other class would. Actually, String is an example of an immutable type - which means that steps are taken to prevent changes to its "Value".)
When a "Reference" parameter is passed ByRef, one now has created a new "Reference" object that points to the original "Reference" object (that, in turn, points to the "Value" of some other object via its "identification code"). The use of ByRef on a "Reference" allows one to modify (or create anew) the "identification code" of the original "Reference" object being passed as a parameter. A function or subroutine or method that performs a swap operation will use ByRef on "Reference" parameters.
Related
I am bit confused over the need to use GET & SET methods in VB.net. I want to discuss two cases in this connection: firstly when we declare the property as PUBLIC and next when we declare the property as PRIVATE.
What is I find is when I define a property as public I can directly set and access the values of that property without using the GET/SET methods --- quite simple: See below
Module Program
Sub Main()
Dim t As New test()
t.name = "Roy" 'Label 1
Console.WriteLine("t.name = {0}", t.name)
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
End Module
Class test
Public Property name() As String
End Class
When I declare that same property as private, as shown below, I can still set and access the value of private property by simply using a constructor and a public subroutine. See below:
Module Program
Sub Main()
Dim t As New test()
t.printValue()
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
End Module
Class test
Private Property Name() As String
Sub New()
Name = "Roy" 'Label 2
End Sub
Public Sub printValue()
Console.WriteLine("Value stored in NAME is: {0}", Name)
End Sub
End Class
So my question is why at all do we need to use the GET/SET methods? I understand that whenever an assignment happens to a property the SET method is implicitly called...but can you please help me understand cases where we MUST explicitly use the GET/SET methods? Or it is that using GET/SET is more of a choice? Validation is one thing that can be added easily at a later stage if one uses GET/SET but then is that the only reason? PLs give your views.
Also, I came across the following two related questions in stackoverflow (for different languages though): Links below:
Why to use getter and setter methods to set class properties?
Why use getters and setters/accessors?
But i could not understand most of the reasons justifying the usage of the GET/SET methods. For example if we dont use the GET/SET method then we are exposing the property to the outside world - meaning it can be directly accessed from outside the class. But then this is true only for PUBLIC properties as PRIVATE properties cannot be directly accessed from outside the class. Similarly in the second link the author mentions the following as a reason to use GET/SET: Providing a debugging interception point for when a property changes at runtime - debugging when and where a property changed to a particular value can be quite difficult without this in some languages. What exactly does this mean --- any simple real life example?
A property is a wrapper around a field, i.e., a class or struct variable. It provides a getter and/or a setter method to access this variable. (You can also have a read-only property returning the result of a simple evaluation not bound to a single field.)
The getters and setters are implicitly called when reading from, respectively writing to properties.
So, the question is not whether to use getters and setters or not, but whether to access fields directly or via a property.
You can declare a property like this, by declaring a field and writing the getter and setter explicitly.
Private _prop1 As String ' Backing field
Public Property Prop1() As String
Get
Return _prop1
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
_prop1 = value
End Set
End Property
or use an Auto-Implemented Property
Public Property Prop1 As String
Both declarations are equivalent. The auto-implemented property implicitly declares a backing field and implements the getter and the setter accordingly.
It can make sense to declare a property as private when you use it only inside the class where it is declared. This still provides the advantages described in the links you provided because this property still hides the details of accessing a field, does validations, etc.; however, it does not forbid the direct access to the backing field inside the class. So, you need to be more disciplined with private properties.
What does a property mean for debugging? You can easily set a breakpoint inside a getter or setter to detect accesses to a property. You cannot set a breakpoint on a field because a field is never executed. It is just a declaration.
You can also add a System.Diagnostics.Debug.Writeline("=====> test") (writes to the Output window) or do some logging in getters and setters.
See also: Tutorial: Learn to debug Visual Basic code using Visual Studio
When using Windows Forms Data Binding or WPF Data Binding properties are required. They also allow change notification.
Dynamically Calculated Values
I didn't read those links, but one reason you might want to implement your own getters & setters is that you may want to return something that requires some type of calculation or manipulation. For example, suppose you have item Sale with properties RawPrice, SalesTax, and FinalPrice. However, you need/choose to dynamically calculate the final price (based on variable sales tax) each time. So you first set the RawPrice, and then query FinalPrice, which returns RawPrice + SalesTax, but SalesTax gets dynamically calculated based on some other property like country of origin etc.
Alternate View of Data
Another reason you might want to do this is to provide another view of the same core data. For example, if your data was an HTML page, perhaps one property returns the normal string value, while another "no-HTML" Property has a custom Getter that performs some regex to remove all HTML tags and return a plain-text variation. This allows you to keep all related code inside of a sub-assembly, rather than having your main program do various manipulations.
Code Portability
This can make your life a lot easier down the road because of code portability. Your code is now more easily re-usable in other projects, since all you need is that one assembly.
Private Variables vs Properties
If I'm doing something that calls for a class with properties like that, there's good chances it's going to have methods, too. Those methods are almost always going to require creating private variables that nothing outside the assembly needs to know about. However, in such cases, they are not going to be private properties but rather simply private variables. For example, instead of Private Property Name() As String, with its implied auto-implemented backer variables with getters & setters, I would instead just say Private Name() As String, which would be equivalent to Dim Name() As String. You can use variables, constants etc. within your class just as you normally would, and, by default, the rest of the world won't know anything about them.
I'm not sure why you'd use a private Property. Maybe there's a good reason; I just don't know what it is. Most of the time, a private variable is probably what you really want. If you think there's a reason that you actually need a Private Property, I'm curious to hear your thinking on it. (I'm always open to a new way of thinking!)
History
Auto-implemented properties were not present in Visual Basic .NET for many years. In the past, you had no choice but to use GET/SET. So it's a more recent development for VB.NET to be able to simply declare a property as you do in your first code example, and for the runtime to automatically generate the backer variables.
I want to make that variable can be assigned with null. But giving'?' seems doesn't work. Please help me find the way out. I'm new to this. Thanks
Public Class T3DObject
Public V(7) As Point
Public E(5) As Surface
End Class
Public Structure ListElmt3DObject
Public first As Elmt3DObject
End Structure
Public Class Elmt3DObject
Public child As ListElmt3DObject?
Public nxt As Elmt3DObject? 'this line is error
Public obj As T3DObject? 'this also error
End Class
Is there any other way? Please share. Thank you!!
This is the code that make error: NullReferenceException
Sub Process(ByRef E As Elmt3DObject)
While E.child IsNot Nothing Or E.nxt IsNot Nothing
'code
End While
End Sub
I know this is a VB.Net question, but to understand this it's helpful to understand some of how C# works, too. In C#, there is a concept of null. You can assign a null value to reference types (ie: VB.Net Class), but you cannot assign null to value types (ie: VB.Net Structure). Value type (Structure) variables always have a value of some kind.
Coming back to VB.Net, we have the Nothing keyword. However, Nothing is not a direct analog to C#'s null. It's closer to match to the C# default(T) expression. VB.Net allows you to assign Nothing to value types. It's just that when you do, you get the default value for the type.
The Nullable(Of T) type and associated language syntax features were designed to allow newer null semantics for value types. This doesn't apply to reference types, because reference types already have a concept of null.
While I'm here, I also see this:
Sub Process(ByRef E As Elmt3DObject)
Elmt3DObject is a reference type (Class). It's almost always a mistake to pass a reference type ByRef. You still want ByVal, because passing ByVal for Classes still passes the reference. It makes a copy of the reference, but it's still just a reference.
I just installed Visual Studio 2010 Service pack (proposed on Windows Update), and I can see a new feature on the "intellisense" that means when I write a Function or Sub in VB.NET it doesn't auto-complete parameters with ByRef or ByVal...
1) Is there anyway that I can configure this option back to how it was before?
2) If I don't specify ByX, which one is used by default? (it seems like it is always ByRef)
It seems that this post covers your question:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/carlosq/archive/2011/03/15/vs-2010-sp1-changing-quot-byval-quot-vb-net-code-editor-experience.aspx
So no, there is no way to get the old behaviour. From now on ByVal is the default (what it was before) and it won't get added automatically to the method parameters.
In my opinion this is a good decision since it's making VB.NET a bit more consistent with C# and avoids unnecessary "noises"(it's already verbose enough).
Old behaviour:
Private Sub test(ByVal test As String)
End Sub
New behaviour
Private Sub test(test As String)
End Sub
Tim covered what you asked directly, but something else to keep in mind is that any reference type variable, like a user defined class even if passed by value will allow you to make changes to that instances properties etc that stay. It won't however allow you to change the entire object. Which may be why it seemed to you to be defaulting to by reference
Public Sub (Something As WhateverClass)
Something = New WhateverClass 'will result in no changes when outside this method
Something.Property1 = "Test" 'will result in an updated property when outside this method
End Sub
From MSDN:
The value of a reference type is a pointer to the data elsewhere in memory.
This means that when you pass a reference type by value,
the procedure code has a pointer to the underlying element's data,
even though it cannot access the underlying element itself. For
example, if the element is an array variable, the procedure code does
not have access to the variable itself, but it can access the array
members.
Beware when transferring routines to VBA, where the default is ByRef (see, e.g., "The Default Method Of Passing Parameters" at the bottom of this page, by the great Chip Pearson).
That can be messy.
I was shocked just a moment ago to discover that the following is legal (the C# equivalent is definitely not):
Class Assigner
''// Ignore this for now.
Public Field As Integer
''// This part is not so weird... take another instance ByRef,
''// assign it to a different instance -- stupid but whatever. '
Sub Assign(ByRef x As Assigner, ByVal y As Assigner)
x = y
End Sub
''// But... what's this?!?
Sub AssignNew()
''// Passing "Me" ByRef???
Assign(Me, New Assigner)
End Sub
''// This is just for testing.
Function GetField() As Integer
Return Me.Field
End Function
End Class
But what's even stranger just as strange to me is that it doesn't seem to do what I expect:
Dim a As New Assigner With {.Field = 10}
a.AssignNew()
Console.WriteLine(a.GetField())
The above outputs "10," not "0" like I thought it would (though naturally, this expectation was itself infused with a certain kind of horror). So it seems that you can pass Me ByRef, but the behavior is somehow overridden (?) by the compiler to be as if you had passed Me ByVal.
Why is it legal to pass Me ByRef? (Is there some backwards-compatibility explanation?)
Am I correct in saying that the behavior of doing this is overridden by the compiler? If not, what am I missing?
This behavior actually follows pretty directly from the Visual Basic specification.
11.4.3 Instance Expressions
An instance expression is the keyword Me, MyClass, or MyBase. An instance expression, which may only be used within the body of a non-shared method, constructor, or property accessor, is classified as a value.
9.2.5.2 Reference Parameters
If the type of the variable being passed to a reference parameter is not compatible with the reference parameter's type, or if a non-variable is passed as an argument to a reference parameter, a temporary variable may be allocated and passed to the reference parameter. The value being passed in will be copied into this temporary variable before the method is invoked and will be copied back to the original variable (if there is one) when the method returns.
(All emphasis mine)
So, the compiler will create a temporary variable assigned to the value of Me to be passed as the ByRef parameter. Upon return, no copy of the resulting value will take place since Me is not a variable.
It appears the compiler transforms "Me" into a variable which is then passed ByRef. If you compile your code, then open it with Reflector, you can see what's happening:
Class Assigner
''// Methods
Public Sub Assign(ByRef x As Assigner, ByVal y As Assigner)
x = y
End Sub
Public Sub AssignNew()
Dim VB$t_ref$S0 As Assigner = Me
Me.Assign((VB$t_ref$S0), New Assigner)
End Sub
Public Function GetField() As Integer
Return Me.Field
End Function
''// Fields
Public Field As Integer
End Class
So it looks like when you call AssignNew(), you are assigning the new instance to the internally generated variable. The "a" variable doesn't get touched because it's not even a part of the function.
This is just one of the thousands of possible 'almost errors' a programmer can make. MS caught most of them, in fact, sometimes I'm suprised at how many warnings do come up.
they missed this one.
As far as why it doesn't change 'me', it's a darn good thing! When you use 'me', it just passes a copy of the real class you are working with, for safety purposes. If this worked they way you were hoping, we would be talking GIANT side-effect. You're innocently working away with in your class' methods, and them BAM all of a sudden you are in an ENTIRELY different object! That would be awful! If you're going to do that, you might as well just write a piece of spagetti MS-Basic line-numbered code with all globals that get randomly set, and no subs/functions.
The way this works is the same way if you pass arguments in parenthesis. For example this works as expected:
Assign(Reference_I_Want_To_Set, New Assigner)
But this doesn't change anything:
Assign((Reference_I_Want_To_Set), New Assigner)
If you reflect the above type of code as adam101 suggests you will see similar results. While that is huge frustration with the parenthesis, it is a very good thing with Me !!!
what you need to do to make this code work is this:
Class Assigner
''// Ignore this for now.
Private newPropertyValue As Integer
Public Property NewProperty() As Integer
Get
Return newPropertyValue
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
newPropertyValue = value
End Set
End Property
''// This part is not so weird... take another instance ByRef,
''// assign it to a different instance -- stupid but whatever. '
Shared Sub Assign(ByRef x As Assigner, ByVal y As Assigner)
x = y
End Sub
''// But... what's this?!?
Shared Sub AssignNew(ByRef x As Assigner)
''// Passing "Me" ByRef???
Assign(x, New Assigner)
End Sub
End Class
then use it like
Dim a As New Assigner With {.NewProperty = 10}
Assigner.AssignNew(a)
my understanding is you cannot change the reference of the object while using it, so you need to change it in a shared sub
since Me cannot be the target of an assignment, the code seem to create a copy of it and from that point on, your not using the real object, but a copy of it
Below I tried to do an Example:
Public Function UserData(ByVal UserDN As String) As DataTable
Dim myTable As DataTable = UserData_Table()
Dim dr As DataRow
dr = myTable.NewRow()
SplitOU2(UserDN, dr("OUDN"), dr("Organisation"), New Object)
dr("UserDN") = UserDN
myTable.Rows.Add(dr)
Return myTable
End Function
Below is the called method:
Friend Sub SplitOU2(ByVal inDN As String, ByRef OUDN As Object, ByRef Organisation As Object, ByRef VerksamhetTyp As Object)
By doing this I can skip to declare the in this example "useless" variable
Dim VerksamhetTyp as Object = "".
Perhaps it looks a little ugly but to have to declare unused variables can also be confusing.
Summary: Check whether or not the method really needs those parameters to be ByRef. Also check that you really don't care about anything it does to the parameters. After scrupulous checking, it's okay to do this - nothing "bad" will happen in terms of the CLR, because it's just a compiler trick under the hood.
Well, VB (unlike C#) will let you do this. Behind the scenes it's effectively creating a new variable and passing it by reference - after all, it has to for the method to be called properly. However, I'd say this is usually a bad idea. The point of ByRef is that you use the value after it's been set within the method.
Do you really need all those parameters to be ByRef in the first place? If you find yourself doing this a lot for a particular method, you could always write a wrapper method which called the original one, but didn't have the ByRef parameters itself.
(I usually find that methods with a lot of ByRef parameters indicate either a lack of understanding of reference types in .NET, or that the parameters should be encapsulated in their own type.)
Having said all of this, it's not always incorrect to ignore the value of a ByRef argument after calling the method. For example, if you just want to know whether or not some text can be parsed as an integer, then using Int32.TryParse is reasonable - but only the return value is useful to you.
The reason that I consider to use this has to do with that the method has even more parameters and that different operation overloads gets the same signature ….
The fact that it works is quite fun and somthing I became awarae óff by chance ...