Home > Cannot Modify > C# Dictionary Struct Key

C# Dictionary Struct Key

Contents

Custom Object as Standard Controller: Plural Or Singular Baden Württemberg Ticket usage more hot questions question feed lang-cs about us tour help blog chat data legal privacy policy work here advertising Now, I suppose the language could add a feature in which it requires the compiler to analyze every method and apply its own "const" attribute based on that analysis. That's an interesting statement. That is, this method is an O(n) operation, where n is System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary.Count. Check This Out

So int[] n = new int[4]; is sort of equivalent to: int n0 = 0; int n1 = 0; int n2 = 0; int n3 = 0; (except sized at runtime, See Also System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary Class, System.Collections.Generic Namespace Dictionary(System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary, System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer) Constructor public Dictionary(IDictionary dictionary, IEqualityComparer comparer) Summary Initializes a new dictionary that contains elements copied from the specified dictionary, has sufficient capacity to Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 418,766 IT Pros & Developers. Practically speaking, casting away const is always an error, now that C++ has the mutable keyword.

C# Dictionary Struct Key

Success! Although Enumerator is a member of this type, Enumerator is not described here; instead, it is described in its own entry, Dictionary.Enumerator . If it was a class (object) then the original code would have worked. –Hans Kesting Nov 17 '09 at 14:21 Correctamundo - This can be a good interview question. See Also System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary Class, System.Collections.Generic Namespace Dictionary(System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer) Constructor public Dictionary(IEqualityComparer comparer) Summary Initializes a new dictionary that is empty, has the default initial capacity, and uses the specified equality comparer.

Vitaliy Liptchinsky Proposed as answer by Vitaliy Liptchinsky Monday, November 17, 2008 12:24 PM Marked as answer by KevinBurton Monday, November 17, 2008 3:56 PM Monday, November 17, 2008 10:49 AM See Also System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary Class, System.Collections.Generic Namespace Dictionary.System.Collections.IDictionary.IsReadOnly Property bool IDictionary.IsReadOnly { get; } Summary This read-only property is implemented to support the IDictionary interface. I think you can solve this by removing the Origin property and instead use a public filed, yes I know it's not a nice solution. C# Structs The idiomatic approach has the advantage that it doesn't have to mention the members it doesn't want to modify, a feature which is only possible because Point is mutable.

After all, in C++ there's a LOT of code that doesn't modify data that isn't marked "const". All fields should be private (or readonly) with the constructor setting them? I'm not sure it's fair to say that "C++ solved it", since C++ doesn't really solve the problem we started out talking about. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13810743/cannot-modify-the-return-value-error-when-modifying-content-of-listt I'll try to be more clear in the future.

At that point, if the language doesn't allow you to cast away And that impeaches the design of said API and should seriously call intoquestion your decision to use it. Dictionary C# I guess at the moment I decided to have a method in my struct, I should have moved to a class. Stack variables do not cause garbage collection (which will hiccup your game) - so they can be very beneficial - but they involve a lot of data copying so they can public static void Test() { MyClass[] classArray = new MyClass[1]; MyStruct[] structArray = new MyStruct[1]; MyInterface[] interfaceArray = new MyInterface[1]; List(1); List(1); List

C# Dictionary Struct Value

Property Value A collection of the keys in the dictionary. There may in fact be such an implementation, and if there is, it will have the same issue. C# Dictionary Struct Key No doubt. Mutable Struct For that matter, lots of methods are essentially "const" even though they can't be marked as such, because they might call some other code that is essentially "const" but which isn't

Pete May 16 '07 #38 P: n/a Peter Duniho On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:12:34 -0700, Zytan

Description [Note: This method is implemented to support the IDictionary interface. ] System.Collections.Generic.ICollection.Count gets set to zero, and references to other objects from elements of the collection are also released. The inconsistent behaviour of structs and classes is confusing. –nawfal Apr 25 '13 at 18:37 | show 3 more comments up vote 0 down vote The problem is that you point Things like overloading hiding certain type conversions, for example. See Also System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary Class, System.Collections.Generic Namespace Dictionary(System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary) Constructor public Dictionary(IDictionary dictionary) Summary Initializes a new dictionary that contains elements copied from the specified dictionary, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the number

When working with structs you need to get the contents of the list item - modify it and then put it back again. C# Struct Vs Class But the reference refers to a single instance, and if you change that instance, that change is reflected whether you look at the copied reference you're using, or the original reference Creating symlink for a file on Windows 7 gives error How to decide between PCA and logistic regression?

See Also System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary Class, System.Collections.Generic Namespace Dictionary.System.Collections.IDictionary.Item Property object IDictionary.this[object key] { get; set; } Summary This read-only property is implemented to support the IDictionary interface.

It's worth clarifying here that the boxing itself is exactly the same as normal. With an array, you get the actual item in the array. I won't accept "using". I suppose you could work it the other way around, claiming that code is "const" unless otherwise marked (say, introduce an "unconst" keyword you have to use any time you want

But, it's becoming obvious that the c# designers just want us to use reference types when we can, and everything in the langauge is based on this, and thus, it is What I want is an efficient way around this. This operates on the COPY, and any changes are lost, and the compiler does NOT warn about this. What if the implementation changes?

At that point, if the language doesn't allow you to cast away const-ness, you're stuck. Are you suggesting that the compiler should start looking at the *implementation* of the method (which could be in a different assembly) to work out what to do? B-Line Medical is seeking .NET Developers for exciting positions in medical product development in MD/DC. and if it did, the compiler couldn't unroll the loop.

If you want to do modify the value in the dictionary, you'll need to use something like: // Note: copying the contents to start with as you can't modify a collection It also prevents string folding, which increases the size of the binary, which has its own set of performance problems. What you need to do is: MapTile tile = tilesData[tile.Key]; if (tile.bgFrame >= tile.bgAnimation) { tile.bgFrame = 0; } else { tile.bgFrame++; } tilesData[tile.Key] = tile; share|improve this answer answered Jun On 14 May 2007 13:31:30 -0700, Bruce Wood wrote: >On May 14, 12:25 pm, Samuel R.

why? I know it lacks this information. The code above won't work even if you manage to compile it.Why don't you make InventoryRecord a class? for( int i = 0; i < myList.Count; i++ ) myList[i] = something; For more info, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ydkbatt6.aspx Comment Add comment · Show 1 · Share 10 |3000 characters needed characters left