Property to store an Array???

[dfetrow410]

Is there an example of how to store and access an array in a Property

Dave

[Matt]

df********@hotm ail.com wrote:

Is there an example of how to store and access an array in a Property

Not sure what you mean. If you mean a property that IS an array, it
works fine:

private int[] intArray = new int[20];
public int[] IntArray
{
get { return intArray; }
set { intArray = value; }
}

// and then...

myobject m = new myobject();
int[] curArray = m.IntArray;

Is that what you were trying to do?

matt

[dfetrow410]

I am storing file names. The may be 1 or 1000. I was just reading an
article about indexers. Whould that work better?

[Matt]

df********@hotm ail.com wrote:

I am storing file names. The may be 1 or 1000. I was just reading an
article about indexers. Whould that work better?

As with most things, it really is up to you. You could use an ArrayList
(1.1)
or a generic array (2.0) to store your data and then return it using an
indexer.
You could simply override the operator[] and return whatever you want.
What
you really need to decide is what you are providing access to. C#
provides
lots of syntactic sugar methods for making things look easy to the end
user.
That doesn't mean any of them are any "better" than anything else.

Matt

[Nick Hounsome]

<df********@hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g49g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I am storing file names. The may be 1 or 1000. I was just reading an
article about indexers. Whould that work better?

You should only use an indexer directly if your class IS a collection.

If it just holds a collection (Seems more likely) then you should probably
have a get-only property to hold the collection and probably make it read
only to the user.

class X
{
List<string> filenames;

public ReadOnlyCollect ion<string> Filenames
{
get { return filenames.AsRea dOnly(); }
}

// And indexer - just for reference
public string this[int i]
{
get { return filenames[i]; }
}

// If you have an indexer then you must have the length somewhere
public int Count { get { return filenames.Count ; }
}

The AsReadOnly() method is an excellent reason to use List<string> rather
than string[].

Most examples use IList<T> rather than ReadOnlyCollect ion<T> as the property
type but this means it seems to me that my way makes it obvious that the
collection is read only without having to read the documentation for the
property.

[Dale]

If you're using .Net 1.1, I suggest that you create a collection from
CollectionBase. You can see a simple example of that in the ScriptCollectio n
my ClientScripts control at
http://www.dalepreston.com/Blog/2005...s-to-your.html or in Natty Gur's more detailed example referenced in my article.

When you create your custom collection, you make a read only property so
that the entire collection is not replaced but rather you update/add/insert,
etc. only items within the collection for instance:

private MyCollectionTyp e myCollection;
public MyCollectionTyp e MyCollection
{
get
{
if (myCollection == null)
myCollection = new MyCollectionTyp e();
return myCollection;
}
}

HTH
--
Dale Preston
MCAD C#
MCSE, MCDBA
"df********@hot mail.com" wrote:

I am storing file names. The may be 1 or 1000. I was just reading an
article about indexers. Whould that work better?

[Kevin Spencer]

An array is by far more lightweight (read "less overhead") than a
Collection. Therefore, when you can get away with an array, it will be
better for your application overall in terms of resource usage and
performance. You only need a Collection if you need to add, or remove items
at any time. This is because an array is immutable (fixed size). When you
change the size of an array, you duplicate the entire array (that you are
keeping). A Collection is not of a fixed size. If you are simply inputting
(for example) 1000 strings one time, and reading it after that, use an
array.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

<df********@hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g49g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I am storing file names. The may be 1 or 1000. I was just reading an
article about indexers. Whould that work better?

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Kevin Spencer <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote:

An array is by far more lightweight (read "less overhead") than a
Collection. Therefore, when you can get away with an array, it will be
better for your application overall in terms of resource usage and
performance. You only need a Collection if you need to add, or remove items
at any time. This is because an array is immutable (fixed size). When you
change the size of an array, you duplicate the entire array (that you are
keeping). A Collection is not of a fixed size. If you are simply inputting
(for example) 1000 strings one time, and reading it after that, use an
array.

However, although an array has a fixed size, it *isn't* generally
immutable (i.e. anyone can change the contents). With collections, as
Nick pointed out, you can expose a read-only collection.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Kevin Spencer]

True, it's not truly immutable. What I meant was that it has a fixed number
of elements.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Kevin Spencer <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote:

An array is by far more lightweight (read "less overhead") than a
Collection. Therefore, when you can get away with an array, it will be
better for your application overall in terms of resource usage and
performance. You only need a Collection if you need to add, or remove
items
at any time. This is because an array is immutable (fixed size). When you
change the size of an array, you duplicate the entire array (that you are
keeping). A Collection is not of a fixed size. If you are simply
inputting
(for example) 1000 strings one time, and reading it after that, use an
array.

However, although an array has a fixed size, it *isn't* generally
immutable (i.e. anyone can change the contents). With collections, as
Nick pointed out, you can expose a read-only collection.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Nick Hounsome]

I don't know about you but I don't remember ever coming across a situation
where it was OK for a user of my class to change the elements of a
collection it held but not to change the size.

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..

True, it's not truly immutable. What I meant was that it has a fixed
number of elements.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Kevin Spencer <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote:

An array is by far more lightweight (read "less overhead") than a
Collection. Therefore, when you can get away with an array, it will be
better for your application overall in terms of resource usage and
performance. You only need a Collection if you need to add, or remove
items
at any time. This is because an array is immutable (fixed size). When
you
change the size of an array, you duplicate the entire array (that you
are
keeping). A Collection is not of a fixed size. If you are simply
inputting
(for example) 1000 strings one time, and reading it after that, use an
array.

However, although an array has a fixed size, it *isn't* generally
immutable (i.e. anyone can change the contents). With collections, as
Nick pointed out, you can expose a read-only collection.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too