skip to content
30 September 2008

Three C# 2.0/3.0 Syntaxes That You Didn’t Know But Were Afraid to Ask

Working with other colleagues, I found these C# syntaxes are still not well-known and used, so I thought of blogging on them.

1 – Properties Without Members

In the old days, before C# 3.0, we used to write syntax like:

public class Point {
    private int _x;
    private int _y;

    public int X {
        get {
            return _x;
        }
        set {
            _x = value;
        }
    }

    public int Y {
        get {
            return _y;
        }
        set {
            _y = value;
        }
    }
}

But if you are not doing any special processing in your property, you can use a shorter syntax introduced in C# 3.0:

public class Point {
    public int X {
        get;
        set;
    }
    public int Y {
        get;
        set;
    }
}

2 – The ‘??

While all of use, especially those coming from C/C++ background have used the ternary operator ‘?:‘, such as:


Point point1 = null;
// some code to initialise the point1...
Point point2 = (point1 == null ? new Point() : point1);

However, C# 2.0 introduced this new syntax:

Point point1 = null;
// some code to initialise the point1...
Point point2 = (point1 ?? new Point());

Which does exactly the same as the previous syntax.

3 – Initialising Properties when Creating an Object

Point point = new Point();
point.X = 1;
point.Y = 1;

Or you can use the C# 3.0 syntax:

Point point = new Point { X = 1, Y = 1};

Probably if you are using LINQ then you have used this code several times.

14Comments
leave your own
  • M.SD October 1st, 2008

    Nice.
    Just as a side note:
    here is how initialize a reference if it is null
    Point point = (point ?? new Point());

    I also like Anonymous Delegates available starting .NET 2.0

  • Ed C. October 6th, 2008

    One comment on your property initialization example: you can also omit the “()” from a parameterless constructor, such as:

    var point = new Point { X = 1, Y = 1 };

  • SR October 6th, 2008

    #1 and #3 are .net 3.5, not 3.0.

  • Bart Czernicki October 6th, 2008

    Anyone working with C# 3.0 for several months should know about these. Pick up any C# 3.0 book and these are covered in the first couple chapters (i.e. John Skeet’s book).

  • Mathias October 6th, 2008

    To SR: I believe that the framework is .NET 3.5, but the corresponding version of C# is 3.0.

  • Adam Tibi October 6th, 2008

    Bart Czernicki,

    I agree. However, not all developers had the chance of reading a book explaining the new additions.

  • Brian Canzanella October 6th, 2008

    ‘??’ is the coalesce operator.

  • Daniel October 6th, 2008

    Here’s #1.5: Even after having used auto-properties for a while, I didn’t realize that these were valid:

    public IList<MyType> PropName {get; private set;}
    public IList<MyType> PropName2 {get; protected set;}

    This is great, because it lets you set the value in a constructor, etc., not expose the setter publicly, and still use auto-properties.

  • Morgan Cheng October 7th, 2008

    To Mathias:
    The host says C# 3.0, not .NET 3.0
    The version of .NET is a little confusing.
    C# 2.0 go along with .NET 2.0;
    Then, MS release .NET 3.0 just with 4 additional libraries WCF, WPF, WF and CardSpace. This is really a version.
    C# 3.0 go along with .NET 3.5.
    I believe MS ust 3.5 instead of 4.0 just to align C# version and .NET version in future.

  • Carl J October 8th, 2008

    If I didn’t know about these syntices (yes, I said ‘syntices’), then how could I be afraid to ask about them? Doesn’t quite make sense.

    Anyways, #1 I’ve known about, and is pretty popular in all of the “What’s new in C# 3.0?”
    #3 is some what popular, but not as popular as #1, and #2, I don’t think I’ve seen that one before.

  • Adam Tibi October 8th, 2008

    Carl,

    Thank you for the correct pronunciation, however, when searching for both words in Google.co.uk :
    – “syntices” : returns 203 results
    – “syntaxes” : returns 418,000 results <– More popular
    So I am going with the flow even though the first one might be correct, because I would be understood by more audience.
    Honestly, I have researched this word before writing the title.

    – Some people are afraid from the unknown, so you might be afraid to ask 🙂

    – This is popular, however, I knew developers who are working on .NET 3.5 but not using them and I am closing the hole.

    – I like the web 2.0 logo on your site

  • Carl J October 9th, 2008

    Adam,
    I was trying to look smart by using ‘syntices’ instead of ‘syntaxes’. Both are correct. 🙂

    Still unclear about asking about something you don’t know, but maybe that’s just me.

    Keep up the good work with the blog.

  • Thomas Hansen December 4th, 2008

    If you’re interested in condensing code (which we all should be interested in) and you’re also (apparently) interested in ASP.NET WebControls (ref; your validator blogs) you should have a look at this; http://ra-ajax.org/jquery-ish-selector-for-webcontrols.blog – which is my latest blog 🙂

  • padana October 30th, 2010

    Thank you for the correct pronunciation, however, when searching for both words in Google.co.uk.
    I was trying to look smart by using ‘syntices’ instead of ‘syntaxes’. Both are correct.

Leave a Reply

Gravatar