Home > Cannot Assign > Cannot Assign To This Because It Is Read-only C

Cannot Assign To This Because It Is Read-only C


I also have a function in the class that I would like to change ALL Of the member variables. I'm actually using the XML serializer, but that's not theproblem.The problem is that I cannot, after reading the data from a file, assignit to 'this'. If I used a static method, the syntax would be this: MyType myobj = MyType.LoadFromFile(@"C:\blah\blither.xml"); which is more concise. Similar topics Can XSLT render the content: rather than text? have a peek here

example: List list = List(); So what are the complete set of use cases? How do I sort files into a sub-folder based on filename part? paulomorgado commented Mar 5, 2015 (sorry, but I haven't read all the comments with the required and deserved attention) I do agree that having unmodifiable locals is very useful. If the struct is small, such as is an Int32, this is perfectly fine and there’s little better that could be done by the developer. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18285087/why-cant-i-set-this-to-a-value-in-c

C# Deserialize This

Gives me an error of Cannot assign to '' because it's read only More specifically,, how can I get this working? EXA: Point temp = this.DoubleSizes(); this.x = temp.x; this.y = temp.y; return this; Again, this is a small example. It says, "Cannot assign to '' because it is read-only". –AaronD Sep 26 '14 at 15:52 @RobertHarvey Would you like to make that an answer so I can accept One more step Please complete the security check to access hardforum.com Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

For structs, it would be nice to have those semantics - I've often wished for in as an addition to ref and out, as readonly ref is not very symmetrical 😁 So as let Finally. But because most getters will need both readonly immutable and non-readonly implementations (if the class intends to allow the gotten object to be mutated), it needs to be possible to call I imagine in practice very few methods will have parameters actually designated as readonly.

Do you want to replace the reference? So really, my "proposal" is about identical to the original proposal in this thread, other than putting in my vote for let (over val) and expanding a little on my preference You create a NEW MyType object and then throw it away by trying to deserialize the object and assign it to this. why not try these out Ideas?

This is a fantastic time to begin resolving the inconsistencies. You can do it elsewhere in a struct too - but certainly not in classes. That's asking for compile-time executed object literals. public string Unused { readonly get { return ""; } readonly set { } } } public class Person { public Name Name { get; } // Implicit readonly immutable get

C# Assign This

readonly int foo = ...; readonly var bar = ...; but it makes the desired immutability harder to express than mutability. Covington wrote: myobj.WriteToFile(@"C:\temp\blah.xml"); I was wanting to be able to do the opposite in the following way: MyType myobj = new MyType(); myobj.LoadFromFile(@"C:\blah\blither.xml"); To me this just adds a wasted step. C# Deserialize This Maybe as a project-wide option? C# Read Only Property This is consistent with its existing use in field declarations.

That said, I don't feel all that strongly either way, .NET Foundation member gafter commented Feb 11, 2015 @HaloFour @louthy let works well for local declarations, but it doesn't work so http://electrictricycle.net/cannot-assign/cannot-assign-a-nil-to-a.html In your example, you normally just fill the properties of your Development class with the values of your dataset. Storage of a material that passes through non-living matter Player claims their wizard character knows everything (from books). Is it possible to bleed brakes without using floor jack?

share|improve this answer answered Jan 4 '14 at 1:07 fujieda 513 add a comment| up vote 2 down vote What you want is a static factory method that creates the object And I think trying to avoid a readonly prefix would be wise to reduce the amount of effort required to 'do the right thing' in choosing the immutable option when coding. Of course, CLR will eventually garbage collect it, but it is better not to create unnecessary elements as it increases application memory consumption. Check This Out Instead, I need to set the result to a temporaryvariable and iterate through my variables...

The only extra code you would have to add would be the code to initialize the fields to the state they would be when you "new" up the object (the constructor That said, I'm all for readonly locals, with a simple short keyword (my vote goes to let). It is hard to tell where my thoughts belong.

EcmaScript 6.0 has both keywords as well although their use is different.

If we want to add support for readonly parameters, I expect we would use the existing keyword readonly. GregRos commented Dec 11, 2015 readonly just seems really wordy for my taste. That being said, I think a better plan is make Load static and have it return a new Photo instance, this is the pattern you see most often in the .NET See http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin...by-talk/104551.

You would be replacing the "this" reference altogether. Cannot assign to because it is read-only P: n/a Michael A. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. this contact form For simplicity, suppose I have a Point class that two members: x and y.

readonly MyStruct x; x.Func(); Here an implicit copy of x will be created to call Func(). EXA: Point temp = this.DoubleSizes(); this.x = temp.x; this.y = temp.y; return this; Again, this is a small example. All-Star 15483 Points 6040 Posts Re: Setting an object equal to C# 'this' in a constructor Feb 13, 2006 10:47 PM|Mikhail Arkhipov (MSFT)|LINK I think initial Development development = new Development(); Then answers can be provided more along the lines of what C# actually does provide.