private/public get/set

Question

Hello everyone New to C# a simple question which my book does not cover. If we do not specify the public/private access of get/set then it is of the same as the public/private access to the property itself but we can overwrite it. For example in the following code in get method when we do not specify public/private it will be automatically the same as the property Abc which makes get public but in set we can overwrite it to make it private? [Code] public class MyList { class Foo { private int _abc; public int Abc { get { return _abc; } private set { _abc = value; } } } static void Main() { Foo f = new Foo(); return; } } [/Code] thanks in advance George

George George · Answer

Great Brandon! I read my question and your answer again. Question: -------------------- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75e8y5dd(VS.80).aspx what makes me confused is -- You cannot use accessor modifiers on an interface or an explicit interface member implementation does it mean we can not use accessor modifiers like public/private on interface property declaration or in class implementation? -------------------- Your answer -------------------- Correct =) Interface members are by default always declared public and you cant change them. That would defeat the purpose of having an interface -------------------- My question is XXX or YYY. Correct means? :-) regards George

Brandon Lewis · Answer

where T : IPerson says that any type you attempt to pass as the generic type parameter MUST implement the IPerson interface. As far as abstract classes go you dont need to have abstract (inherit only) methods in it. They can follow standard method signatures :)

George George · Answer

Cool Brandon! Great sample! It takes me sometime to read and learn. Two more comments 1. generic constraints you mean where T : IPerson right? 2. Abstract class has no need to must have abstract methods right (like your class Person)? regards George

Brandon Lewis · Answer

Correct =) Interface members are by default always declared public and you cant change them. That would defeat the purpose of having an interface when you implement an interface on a class it basically says Hey I implement this interface so Im guaranteed to have these methods exposed publicly for use A good example is in generic constraints: public interface IPerson { char Gender { get ; } string Name { get ; set ; } string PhoneNumber { get ; set ; } } public class Job where T : IPerson { private T person; public Job(T person) { this .person = person; } public void GetWorkDone() { //No discrimination meant :) if (person.Gender == 'M') { MessageBox .Show(Im male and Im doing some work. My name is  + person.Name +  glad to meet you! Hello!); } else if (person.Gender == 'F') { MessageBox .Show(Hello! Im female and Im doing some work. My phone number is  + person.PhoneNumber +  glad to meet you! Hello!); } else { throw new ArgumentException (This person should definitely see a doctor!); } } } Basically when declaring an interface and implementing it on a class you can say This class is guaranteed to have these member which works good for forcing generic constraints. Then when you create a class with a generic type parameter you can create the class definition with members that are guaranteed by that constraint. A generic constraint means a few things two of which are: 1) Any types you attempt to set as the type parameter of this class MUST implement the IPerson interface. 2) Since only classes that implement the IPerson interface can be used as generic type parameters then the members are guaranteed and therefore you can write the class body using members from the IPerson interface. If you want to store members or initialize base members use an abstract class. It works much like an interface but you can inherit from it and have preset values and method/property bodies. Like so: public abstract class Person { protected char gender = 'M'; protected string name = John Doe; protected string phoneNumber = 000-000-0000; public virtual char Gender { get { return this .gender; } } public virtual string Name { get { return this .name; } set { this .name = value ; } } internal virtual string PhoneNumber { get { return this .phoneNumber; } set { this .phoneNumber = value ; } } } An abstract class is only inheritable you cannot create instances of it. Just as sealed classes cannot be inherited only used to create objects. It just really depends on what you wanna do =D If you have classes like these: public class Me : IPerson { private char gender = 'M'; private string name = ScrapIron; private string phoneNumber = 123-456-7890; public char Gender { get { return this .gender; } } public string Name { get { return this .name; } set { this .name = value ; } } public string PhoneNumber { get { return this .phoneNumber; } set { this .phoneNumber = value ; } } } public class You : IPerson { private char gender = 'M'; private string name = George George; private string phoneNumber = 111-222-3333; public char Gender { get { return this .gender; } } public string Name { get { return this .name; } set { this .name = value ; } } public string PhoneNumber { get { return this .phoneNumber; } set { this .phoneNumber = value ; } } } Then... create instance of jobs: //Create new jobs using us as workers. Job Me > myJob = new Job Me >( new Me ()); Job You > yourJob = new Job You >( new You ()); //Lets do some work. myJob.GetWorkDone(); yourJob.GetWorkDone(); And you know what else is cool? If you dont know what kind of object is going to be created until runtime you can do something like this: Job IPerson > unknownPersonsJob = new Job IPerson >(( IPerson ) new Me ()); or Job IPerson > unknownPersonsJob = new Job IPerson >(( IPerson ) new You ()); Kind of a poor example but youll see where Im going when you get more used to this sort of thing. It doesnt matter because both classes implement the IPerson interface. This also works with base classes such as inheriting from an abstract or superclass. Lots to absorb but itll all become second nature the more you use it =D

George George · Answer

Cool! I have found some more materials from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75e8y5dd(VS.80).aspx what makes me confused is -- You cannot use accessor modifiers on an interface or an explicit interface member implementation does it mean we can not use accessor modifiers like public/private on interface property declaration or in class implementation? regards George

Brandon Lewis · Answer

Thats correct. You can create a property with a publicly accessible get accessor so objects outside of the class can get the value but you can create a private set accessor that will allow only the class itself (no objects outside or objects that derive from it) to change the value of the property. It goes the same for public protected and protected internal.