CSharp/C#, Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C#

Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C#

Author	Message
Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP #1 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Jeff, It's simple. All you have to do is declare your properties/fields as either static (which allows them to be changed) or const (which they can not be changed) or as static readonly (which can only be changed when the static constructor is called, or they use the value that they are defined with). You can do it like this: // Const, static, and static readonly values. public const int MyConst = 1; public static readonly int MyStaticReadOnly = 2; public static int MyStatic = 3; Then compile this into an assembly and add a reference to this assembly wherever you need it in your projects. Hope this helps. -- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] Quote: > I have an application in which I would like to construct a > file which contains a number of constants that can be used > across several classes/projects. > I would like to be able to make use of these constants > without declaring a new instance of the class which > contains them, as it appears everything must be in a class > wrapper in C#. > Is there any way I can do this? I'm guessing there is > something related to the use of the 'static' keyword which > can be applied here. I can get static METHODS to work, but > I don't know how to declare the CONSTANTS so that they are > externally visible without constructing an instance of the > class first. > VB.NET has to be doing this somehow in its modules files. > What is it doing behind the scenes in order to make this > happen, such that I can emulate it in C#. > Thanks for any replies. > Jeff Ulrich
Sat, 14 May 2005 00:02:54 GMT

Tom Shelto #2 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Quote: > I have an application in which I would like to construct a > file which contains a number of constants that can be used > across several classes/projects. > I would like to be able to make use of these constants > without declaring a new instance of the class which > contains them, as it appears everything must be in a class > wrapper in C#. > Is there any way I can do this? I'm guessing there is > something related to the use of the 'static' keyword which > can be applied here. I can get static METHODS to work, but > I don't know how to declare the CONSTANTS so that they are > externally visible without constructing an instance of the > class first. > VB.NET has to be doing this somehow in its modules files. > What is it doing behind the scenes in order to make this > happen, such that I can emulate it in C#. > Thanks for any replies. > Jeff Ulrich Constants are static by their very nature. All a VB Module is, is a class with all static methods, and a private constructor. You can do the same in C#.... public class Globals { // here are some constants public const int Red = 0; public const int Blue = 1; public const int Green = 2; // here are some readonly stuff public static readonly Guid IID = new Guid("148BD524-A2AB-11CE-B11F-00AA00530503"); // here is a method public static bool DoCoolStuff() { return true; } private Globals() {} // make sure no one can create the class Quote: } HTH, Tom Shelton
Sat, 14 May 2005 00:21:55 GMT

Randy A. Ynchaust #3 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Jeff, Quote: > I have an application in which I would like to construct a > file which contains a number of constants that can be used > across several classes/projects. So, in .Net lingo, you want to create a "Shared Assembly" and install that assembly in the "Global Assembly Cache." The assembly will contain the stuff that you want to share across several classes/projects. Quote: > I would like to be able to make use of these constants > without declaring a new instance of the class which > contains them, as it appears everything must be in a class > wrapper in C#. Hum, <scratching head>, hum, <scratching head more>, I am not sure I understand the significance of this requirement? What is the difference between declaring them within the context of a class: public class GlobalConstantsSupplier { public const int MyConstant1 = 1; public const int MyConstant2 = 2; Quote: } and declaring them so that they are not within the context of a class: const int MyConstant1 = 1; const int MyConstant2 = 2; What am I missing? Except that one approach involves object-oriented programming ( and requires a little more typing) and the other involves conventional programming (and less typing)? Quote: > Is there any way I can do this? There are many ways to do this, but it takes a paridgm-shift. Quote: > I'm guessing there is > something related to the use of the 'static' keyword which > can be applied here. Note that constants are always static (although you don't use the static keyword) and can not be changed. Statics are static, but can be changed when they are declared public. Quote: > I can get static METHODS to work, If you want to provide "constants" who's values change depending on some criteria, the best way to accomplish the task is to declare the variables as private or protected statics, then provide public static property getter methods. In those methods you would perform the calculations and return the constant value. If the value never changes, such as PI, then a public constant is probably what you are looking for. Quote: > but > I don't know how to declare the CONSTANTS so that they are > externally visible without constructing an instance of the > class first. The example above provide this. Also, consider the "Math" class of the .Net Framework. It provides PI, E, Abs(), etc., that are examples of what you might be wanting. Quote: > VB.NET has to be doing this somehow in its modules files. I would recommend that you look to examples found in the classes of the .Net Framework which provide common functionality for VB.Net, C#, C++, and JScript. This will reinforce the notion that the CTS and CLR were created to support a language-agnostic programming environment.
Sat, 14 May 2005 00:54:25 GMT

Jeff Ulric #4 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Once again, thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to do. Jeff Quote: >-----Original Message----- >Jeff, > It's simple. All you have to do is declare your properties/fields as Quote: >either static (which allows them to be changed) or const (which they can not >be changed) or as static readonly (which can only be changed when the static Quote: >constructor is called, or they use the value that they are defined with). >You can do it like this: >// Const, static, and static readonly values. >public const int MyConst = 1; >public static readonly int MyStaticReadOnly = 2; >public static int MyStatic = 3; > Then compile this into an assembly and add a reference to this assembly Quote: >wherever you need it in your projects. > Hope this helps. >-- > - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] >> I have an application in which I would like to construct a >> file which contains a number of constants that can be used >> across several classes/projects. >> I would like to be able to make use of these constants >> without declaring a new instance of the class which >> contains them, as it appears everything must be in a class >> wrapper in C#. >> Is there any way I can do this? I'm guessing there is >> something related to the use of the 'static' keyword which >> can be applied here. I can get static METHODS to work, but >> I don't know how to declare the CONSTANTS so that they are >> externally visible without constructing an instance of the >> class first. >> VB.NET has to be doing this somehow in its modules files. >> What is it doing behind the scenes in order to make this >> happen, such that I can emulate it in C#. >> Thanks for any replies. >> Jeff Ulrich >.
Sat, 14 May 2005 02:49:48 GMT

Mattias Sj?gre #5 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Tom, Quote: >All a VB Module is, is a class >with all static methods, and a private constructor. You can do the same in >C#.... Actually, Modules don't have constructors at all, not even a private one. You can't do that in C#. Mattias === http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ Please reply only to the newsgroup.
Sat, 14 May 2005 05:42:51 GMT

Tom Shelto #6 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Quote: > Tom, > >All a VB Module is, is a class > >with all static methods, and a private constructor. You can do the same in > >C#.... > Actually, Modules don't have constructors at all, not even a private > one. You can't do that in C#. Looks like your right.... I just looked at the IL and it appears that it is a sealed class with a Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.StandardModuleAttribute applied. I knew it was class, I just assumed that it had a private constructor. Oh, well you get the same affect by just adding a private constructor to a C# class with all static methods. Tom Shelton
Sat, 14 May 2005 06:24:25 GMT

Chad Myer #7 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Quote: > > Tom, > > >All a VB Module is, is a class > > >with all static methods, and a private constructor. You can do the same > in > > >C#.... > > Actually, Modules don't have constructors at all, not even a private > > one. You can't do that in C#. > Looks like your right.... I just looked at the IL and it appears that it is > a sealed class with a > Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.StandardModuleAttribute applied. I > knew it was class, I just assumed that it had a private constructor. Oh, > well you get the same affect by just adding a private constructor to a C# > class with all static methods. More VB trickery to obscure true object oriented programming :( -c
Sat, 14 May 2005 08:35:17 GMT

Tom Shelto #8 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Quote: > > > Tom, > > > >All a VB Module is, is a class > > > >with all static methods, and a private constructor. You can do the > same > > in > > > >C#.... > > > Actually, Modules don't have constructors at all, not even a private > > > one. You can't do that in C#. > > Looks like your right.... I just looked at the IL and it appears that > it is > > a sealed class with a > > Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.StandardModuleAttribute > applied. I > > knew it was class, I just assumed that it had a private constructor. > Oh, > > well you get the same affect by just adding a private constructor to a > C# > > class with all static methods. > More VB trickery to obscure true object oriented programming :( > -c It does seem odd to me... Why go through all the trouble to add an attribute, when all they had to do was add a private constructor? Tom Shelton
Sat, 14 May 2005 06:58:39 GMT

Mattias Sj?gre #9 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Tom, Quote: >Why go through all the trouble to add an >attribute, when all they had to do was add a private constructor? Huh? Those are entirely different things. Modules don't have constructors because there's no need for them, all members are shared. Having a private constructor is not the same thing as not having a constructor at all. If you have a private constructor, the class can can create instances of itself. You can't to that with a Module. The StandardModuleAttribute is there so the VB.NET compiler can differentiate between a regular class and a module. That's needed to auto-Import module members. Mattias === http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ Please reply only to the newsgroup.
Sat, 14 May 2005 07:13:12 GMT

Tom Shelto #10 / 10	Equivalent of "VB Modules" in C# Quote: > Tom, > >Why go through all the trouble to add an > >attribute, when all they had to do was add a private constructor? > Huh? Those are entirely different things. > Modules don't have constructors because there's no need for them, all > members are shared. > Having a private constructor is not the same thing as not having a > constructor at all. If you have a private constructor, the class can > can create instances of itself. You can't to that with a Module. > The StandardModuleAttribute is there so the VB.NET compiler can > differentiate between a regular class and a module. That's needed to > auto-Import module members. To me the idea was to disallow a client to instantiate an instance of the Module... I wasn't thinking along the lines of a class not being able to instantiate it self. I suppose it makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way. Thanks for clearing that up. Tom Shelton
Sat, 14 May 2005 07:26:35 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 10 post ]