automatic-properties

MATLAB how to automatically read a number of files

爱⌒轻易说出口 提交于 2019-12-02 10:59:45
I would like to plot a number of 3D graphs from different data files. For example I am using fid = fopen('SS 1.dat','r'); to read the first file and then plot a graph. How to set the program to change the name to 'SS 2.dat' automatically? Also for the tenth file the name becomes 'SS 10.dat' which has one space less (i.e.only two space between SS and 10) then the first to ninth files. How to set the program to adjust for that? Thank you. The following code displays a lazy way to print the names from 1 to 999 that you mentioned: for ii=1:999 ns = numel(num2str(ii)); switch ns case 1 fname = ['ss

Why are my auto-implemented properties working in ASP.NET 2.0?

夙愿已清 提交于 2019-12-01 23:06:52
问题 I'm using the auto-implemented properties syntax in the C# source files of my ASP.NET Web Application: public int IdUser { get; set; } ... this.IdUser = 1; The Target framework of the project is .NET Framework 2.0 . It compile and seems to run properly on a IIS Server with only ASP.NET 2.0 installed. I use Visual Studio 2010 to develop and compile. I understood this syntax came with .NET 3. Did I miss a setting somewhere in VS ? Can I expect trouble deploying the website on a IIS/ASP.NET 2.0

How to create an auto-property faster in Delphi IDE?

走远了吗. 提交于 2019-12-01 03:11:31
I need to create and manage many simple published properties. I call them auto-properties if they look like that: private FTitle: string; published property Title: string read FTitle write FTitle; Usually I create them next way: Adding property name and type: property Title: string Selecting and copying property name Title to clipboard. Appending the line with read F Ctrl+V write F Ctrl+V ; Pressing Ctrl+Shift+C and this will generate the private field Is there any way to exclude steps 2 and 3 to add properties faster? Maybe it is possible to create some macro for this? Stefan Glienke Since

How do I write private set auto-properties in VB 10?

 ̄綄美尐妖づ 提交于 2019-11-30 23:00:57
问题 in C#: public string Property { get; private set; } in VB? Please vote or/and share your ideas! 回答1: I don't think that is possible (yet). See this link on MSDN. The above article even links to another one about mixed access levels. I found this on Microsoft Connect, so they are thinking about it (If it will be for VS2010 that's another question). 回答2: Like this: Private Thingy As Integer Property Thing() As Integer Get Return Thingy End Get Private Set(ByVal value As Integer) Thingy = value

Do you think “auto interface implementation” would be useful in .NET / C# [closed]

半城伤御伤魂 提交于 2019-11-30 15:32:10
Consider this: public class interface Person : IPerson { int ID { get; protected set; } string FirstName { get; set; } string LastName { get; set; } string FullName { get { return FirstName + " " + LastName; } } } And this: public class StubPerson : IPerson { int ID { get { return 0; protected set { } } string FirstName { get { return "Test" } set { } } string LastName { get { return "User" } set { } } string FullName { get { return FirstName + " " + LastName; } } } Usage: IPerson iperson = new Person(); Or: IPerson ipersonStub = new StubPerson(); Or: IPerson ipersonMock = mocks.CreateMock

Is implementing a singleton using an auto-property a good idea?

試著忘記壹切 提交于 2019-11-30 12:53:58
I recently found out about auto-properties and like them quite a lot. At this moment I am trying to use them everywhere where I can. Not really to just be able to use them everywhere, but more to see how well they work in most situations. Now I am making a singleton and thought:"Hey, let's try auto-properties here as well". public class MySingleton { public static MySingleton MySingleton { get; private set; } private MySingleton() {} static MySingleton() { MySingleton = new MySingleton(); } } So my question is: "Is it a good idea to implement a singleton like this?" I am not asking whether a

Is there a way to make readonly (not just private) automatic properties?

心已入冬 提交于 2019-11-30 09:15:13
Automatic properties let me replace this code: private MyType myProperty; public MyType MyProperty { get { return myPropertyField; } } with this code: public MyType MyProperty { get; private set; } with a few changes here and there - but is there a way to replace this code: private readonly MyType myProperty; public MyType MyProperty { get { return myPropertyField; } } with something similar? No, but this idea is being tracked on Connect . Indeed, there is no way to do this at present. We realize that in C# 3 we produced a bit of a philosophical oxymoron. The design of LINQ is heavily steeped

C# Automatic Properties - Why Do I Have To Write “get; set;”?

元气小坏坏 提交于 2019-11-30 04:12:31
If both get and set are compulsory in C# automatic properties, why do I have to bother specifying "get; set;" at all? ERROR: A property or indexer may not be passed as an out or ref parameter If you didn't specify {get; set;} then the compiler wouldn't know if it's a field or a property. This is important becasue while they "look" identical the compiler treats them differently. e.g. Calling "InitAnInt" on the property raises an error. class Test { public int n; public int i { get; set; } public void InitAnInt(out int p) { p = 100; } public Test() { InitAnInt(out n); // This is OK InitAnInt(out

Is implementing a singleton using an auto-property a good idea?

﹥>﹥吖頭↗ 提交于 2019-11-29 18:24:25
问题 I recently found out about auto-properties and like them quite a lot. At this moment I am trying to use them everywhere where I can. Not really to just be able to use them everywhere, but more to see how well they work in most situations. Now I am making a singleton and thought:"Hey, let's try auto-properties here as well". public class MySingleton { public static MySingleton MySingleton { get; private set; } private MySingleton() {} static MySingleton() { MySingleton = new MySingleton(); } }

Is there a way to make readonly (not just private) automatic properties?

夙愿已清 提交于 2019-11-29 13:07:15
问题 Automatic properties let me replace this code: private MyType myProperty; public MyType MyProperty { get { return myPropertyField; } } with this code: public MyType MyProperty { get; private set; } with a few changes here and there - but is there a way to replace this code: private readonly MyType myProperty; public MyType MyProperty { get { return myPropertyField; } } with something similar? 回答1: No, but this idea is being tracked on Connect. 回答2: Indeed, there is no way to do this at