Snippets:
private double memberVal;
public double MemberVal
{
get { return memberVal; }
set { memberVal= value; }
}
and
public double MemberVal
{
get; set;
}
views:
127answers:
4
+13
A:
Almost. In the second example, MemberVal is not publicly accessible.
Matt
2010-04-19 07:40:59
it was mistake. MemberVal is public.
Samvel Siradeghyan
2010-04-19 08:18:23
@Samvel - Based on your edit, they are now the same. The first snippet will use one more variable than the second snippet, but the behavior is the same.
Matt
2010-04-19 08:22:15
@Matt: "The first snippet will use one more variable than the second snippet" . . . ish . . . The class still have a private storage member for the property, it's autogenerated and invisible but can be seen through refelection and/or in IL.
Binary Worrier
2010-04-19 08:34:22
+3
A:
Yes, that code is equivalent, apart from MemberVal not being public in the second example (did you mean that). In the latter case, the compiler generates a field for you. It will have another, auto-generated name.
driis
2010-04-19 07:41:39
+5
A:
No, but now they are the same
private double memberVal;
public double MemberVal
{
get { return memberVal; }
set { memberVal= value; }
}
and
public double MemberVal
{
get; set;
}
Update Except - as pointed out by Johannes Rössel - that you can access the field from code in the first case but not in the latter :-) –
Meaning that in the first code sample, within your class you can directly set the backing member for the property (i.e. private double memberVal1 e.g. memberVal = 1.1;), where in the second, there is still a private backing member for the property, but it's now invisible.
You can only access it through the property.
Binary Worrier
2010-04-19 07:42:33
Except that you can access the field from code in the first case but not in the latter :-)
Joey
2010-04-19 07:43:55
Except for the inaccessible, auto-generated private member in the second example.
ck
2010-04-19 07:44:39
@Johannes Rössel: Yes, that's well worth pointing out, have updated to include same :)
Binary Worrier
2010-04-19 08:31:52
A:
private double memberVal;
public double MemberVal
{
get { return memberVal; }
set { memberVal= value; }
}
public double MemberVal
{
get; set;
}
second of the code-snippets is not supposed work on .net 2.0, coz it was introduced in .net 3.0.
The second is the short-hand notation for the first one but works only on .net 3.0 or higher.
JMSA
2010-04-19 09:01:02