C#•2y ago

Nullable approach with property defined in base and initialized in derived classes [Answered]

Is there an approach for the Base.Some property besides changing it to SomeType? or suppressing with = null!;. I want to defer the creation and leave it up to a derived class.

public abstract class Base
{
    public SomeType Some { get; set; }
}

public class DerivedA : Base
{
    public DerivedA()
    {
        Some = new SomeType(1, 2, 3);
    }
}

public class DerivedB : Base
{
    public DerivedB()
    {
        Some = new SomeType(9, 8, 7);
    }
}

public class SomeType
{
    public SomeType(int a, int b, int c) { }
}

public abstract class Base
{
    public SomeType Some { get; set; }
}

public class DerivedA : Base
{
    public DerivedA()
    {
        Some = new SomeType(1, 2, 3);
    }
}

public class DerivedB : Base
{
    public DerivedB()
    {
        Some = new SomeType(9, 8, 7);
    }
}

public class SomeType
{
    public SomeType(int a, int b, int c) { }
}

16 Replies

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

required I think, did it land yet?

Klarth•2y ago

Does that work in derived instances? 🤔

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

but you can just make a constructor honestly

Klarth•2y ago

I was thinking of just required init;

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

since you set this property anyway

Klarth•2y ago

Constructor isn't good enough for the actual scenario. There's some logic involved.

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

ctor which takes in your SomeType instance which you can generate with any logic

Klarth•2y ago

I can't use logic inside of the type's ctor to create the instance and pass the created instance to the parent ctor...I think.

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

should be able to I think 🤔

MODiX•2y ago

Oryp4ik#0120

REPL Result: Success

public abstract class Hehehe
{
    public Hehehe(int aa) { }
}

public class Gg : Hehehe
{
    public Gg(int a, int b) : base(a + b) {}
}

public abstract class Hehehe
{
    public Hehehe(int aa) { }
}

public class Gg : Hehehe
{
    public Gg(int a, int b) : base(a + b) {}
}

Compile: 479.328ms | Execution: 29.686ms | React with ❌ to remove this embed.

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

builds

Klarth•2y ago

That's a pretty simple expression, but it looks like required does the job.

WhiteBlackGoose•2y ago

Good to hear. I have no experience with required, so couldn't help

Klarth•2y ago

Need to use [SetsRequiredMembers] on the ctor, too, if you don't want to use an object initializer.

Klarth•2y ago

Accord•2y ago

✅ This post has been marked as answered!

Gaming

Programming

Nullable approach with property defined in base and initialized in derived classes [Answered]