Kicking around some small structures while answering this post, I came across the following unexpectedly:
The following structure, using an int field is perfectly legal:
struct MyStruct
{
public MyStruct ( int size )
{
this.Size = size; // <-- Legal assignment.
}
public int Size;
}
However, the following structure, using an automatic property does not compile:
struct MyStruct
{
public MyStruct ( int size )
{
this.Size = size; // <-- Compile-Time Error!
}
public int Size{get; set;}
}
The error returned is "The 'this' object cannot be used before all of its fields are assigned to". I know that this is standard procedure for a struct: the backing field for any property must be assigned directly (and not via the property's set accessor) from within the struct's constructor.
A solution is to use an explicit backing field:
struct MyStruct
{
public MyStruct(int size)
{
_size = size;
}
private int _size;
public int Size
{
get { return _size; }
set { _size = value; }
}
}
(Note that VB.NET would not have this issue, because in VB.NET all fields are automatically initialized to 0/null/false when first created.)
This would seem to be an unfortunate limitation when using automatic properties with structs in C#. Thinking conceptually, I was wondering if this wouldn't be a reasonable place for there to be an exception that allows the property set accessor to be called within a struct's constructor, at least for an automatic property?
This is a minor issue, almost an edge-case, but I was wondering what others thought about this...
From C# 6 onward: this is no longer a problem
Becore C# 6, you need to call the default constructor for this to work:
public MyStruct(int size) : this()
{
Size = size;
}
A bigger problem here is that you have a mutable struct. This is never a good idea. I would make it:
public int Size { get; private set; }
Not technically immutable, but close enough.
With recent versions of C#, you can improve on this:
public int Size { get; }
This can now only be assigned in the constructor.