Hello,

I trying to do something that I'm not sure is possible. I want to
create a class or struct where this is can be done:

public class myInt32
{
//TODO
}
......

public class b
{
public void myMethod()
{
myInt32 a = new myInt32();
a = 2;
}
}

I want a Int32 to with I want to add some special behaviour, it
possible to create a class or struct where one of it's properties can
be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
myobject.myproperty ?

Hope you can help,
Carlos Pedro

Carlos,

You could add an operator for an implicit and explicit conversions.
However, you will also have to overload all the other operators for your
type if you want to perform things like addition, subtraction, etc, etc.

Hope this helps.

--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- (E-Mail Removed)

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> I trying to do something that I'm not sure is possible. I want to
> create a class or struct where this is can be done:
>
> public class myInt32
> {
> //TODO
> }
> .....
>
> public class b
> {
> public void myMethod()
> {
> myInt32 a = new myInt32();
> a = 2;
> }
> }
>
> I want a Int32 to with I want to add some special behaviour, it
> possible to create a class or struct where one of it's properties can
> be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
> myobject.myproperty ?
>
> Hope you can help,
> Carlos Pedro
>

I don't think that would work since when i do this:

myclass a = new myclass();
a = 2;

I need to convert the 2 (int) to myclass, not the other way arround.

Am I wrong?

Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> You could add an operator for an implicit and explicit conversions.
> However, you will also have to overload all the other operators for your
> type if you want to perform things like addition, subtraction, etc, etc.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --
> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
> - (E-Mail Removed)
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I trying to do something that I'm not sure is possible. I want to
> > create a class or struct where this is can be done:
> >
> > public class myInt32
> > {
> > //TODO
> > }
> > .....
> >
> > public class b
> > {
> > public void myMethod()
> > {
> > myInt32 a = new myInt32();
> > a = 2;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > I want a Int32 to with I want to add some special behaviour, it
> > possible to create a class or struct where one of it's properties can
> > be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
> > myobject.myproperty ?
> >
> > Hope you can help,
> > Carlos Pedro
> >

> where one of it's properties can
> be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
> myobject.myproperty ?

I didn't quite follow this; do you mean like the default methods of COM
fame? Then I don't think so. What usage were you looking for?

> myInt32 a = new myInt32();
> a = 2;

You can, however, use implicit cast operators to achive this, at least (not
sure if this was part of the question):

using System;
using System.ComponentModel;
class Program {
private static void Main() {
MyInt32 val = 2;
}
}
[ImmutableObject(true)]
struct MyInt32 {
public readonly int Value;
public MyInt32(int value) { Value = value; }
public static implicit operator MyInt32(int value) {
return new MyInt32(value);
}
public static implicit operator int(MyInt32 value) {
return value.Value;
}
}

Also note that 3.0 may offer some hope for adding extension methods to
existing classes; I can't recall off the top of my head whether this is 3.0
or 4.0 or canned... but it looked interesting...

Marc

That's why you need an implicit operator. Take a look at the section of
the MSDN documentation titled "How to: Implement User-Defined Conversions
Between Structs (C# Programming Guide) ", located at (watch for line wrap):

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zk2z37d3.aspx


--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- (E-Mail Removed)

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I don't think that would work since when i do this:
>
> myclass a = new myclass();
> a = 2;
>
> I need to convert the 2 (int) to myclass, not the other way arround.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
> Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>> You could add an operator for an implicit and explicit conversions.
>> However, you will also have to overload all the other operators for your
>> type if you want to perform things like addition, subtraction, etc, etc.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> --
>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>> - (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I trying to do something that I'm not sure is possible. I want to
>> > create a class or struct where this is can be done:
>> >
>> > public class myInt32
>> > {
>> > //TODO
>> > }
>> > .....
>> >
>> > public class b
>> > {
>> > public void myMethod()
>> > {
>> > myInt32 a = new myInt32();
>> > a = 2;
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > I want a Int32 to with I want to add some special behaviour, it
>> > possible to create a class or struct where one of it's properties can
>> > be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
>> > myobject.myproperty ?
>> >
>> > Hope you can help,
>> > Carlos Pedro
>> >
>

Thanks it, Thankx to you all.

Marc Gravell wrote:
> > where one of it's properties can
> > be accessed directly by the object name, instead of
> > myobject.myproperty ?
>
> I didn't quite follow this; do you mean like the default methods of COM
> fame? Then I don't think so. What usage were you looking for?
>
> > myInt32 a = new myInt32();
> > a = 2;
>
> You can, however, use implicit cast operators to achive this, at least (not
> sure if this was part of the question):
>
> using System;
> using System.ComponentModel;
> class Program {
> private static void Main() {
> MyInt32 val = 2;
> }
> }
> [ImmutableObject(true)]
> struct MyInt32 {
> public readonly int Value;
> public MyInt32(int value) { Value = value; }
> public static implicit operator MyInt32(int value) {
> return new MyInt32(value);
> }
> public static implicit operator int(MyInt32 value) {
> return value.Value;
> }
> }
>
> Also note that 3.0 may offer some hope for adding extension methods to
> existing classes; I can't recall off the top of my head whether this is 3.0
> or 4.0 or canned... but it looked interesting...
>
> Marc