Cfrgtkky

No, there is no way to do this more easily in the current version of C#. There was a new feature in the C# 6.0 prereleases called Primary Constructors to solve this, but it was removed before the final release. https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/7ca517/primary-constructor-is-removed-from-C-Sharp-6-0/

Currently, I believe the C# team are working on adding records to the language: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/features/records/docs/features/records.md - this should make working with simple data classes much simpler, as in F#

Short: No, Long: Yes, there is a hack.

You can use a mix of reflection and storing the parameter in a temporary array to achieve that.

class TestClass

{

    public string var1 { get; set; }

    public string var2 { get; set; }

    public string var3 { get; set; }



    public TestClass(string var1, string var2, string var3) : base()

    {

        var param = new { var1, var2, var3 };

        PropertyInfo info = this.GetType().GetProperties();



        foreach (PropertyInfo infos in info) {

            foreach (PropertyInfo paramInfo in param.GetType().GetProperties()) {

                if (infos.Name == paramInfo.Name) {

                    infos.SetValue(this, paramInfo.GetValue(param, null));

                }

            }

        }



    }



}

This basically loops through the properties and check's whether the name equals the parameter name, which have been stored in a temporary array (you can't get the parameter value with reflection), and assigns it if they match.

Note: I do not recommend assigning properties like that, but for the sake of proof that it's possible I came up with this.

The answer to your question is no, but you could use properties to get a similar fix:

class MyClass

{

    public int Var1 {get;set;}

    public int Var2 {get;set;}

    public int Var3 {get;set;}

    public int Var4 {get;set;}

    public MyClass(){



    }

}



void Main()

{

   var myClass = new MyClass

   {

     Var1 = 1,

     Var2 = 2,

     Var3 = 3,

   };

}

In simple terms not you cant. The use of this is not necessary, but it is elegant to do and shows intent as to reinforce the fact that a variable is part of the context of a class.

However the problem here arise from the fact that both your parameters and instance variables have the same names.

The compiler is unable to differentiate between same name variables(it night complaints of circular reference).

The use of this keyword allow us we tell the compiler that we are referring to the current instance of that variable.

I think that you can improve the code and coding per se with a better Naming approch for your variables.

Eg var1 var2 var3 they don't really say anything and make the code hard to understand.

Try to be specific and verbose :
Eg firstName, lastName, address and so forth. They are self-explanatory.

I can think of a no easy way of populating the fields of an object within a constructor other than assigning them directly. As others have said, there may be some workarounds using reflection, but it is not even close to the simplicity of populating the fields manually.

Maybe one way of populating the fields of a class from the constructor without adding any actual code to the constructor would be to alter the IL after build and to add the code that you would manually add yourself. This may be an interesting approach for a library or NuGet package.

Other than that, I don't see use-cases for populating fields of a class from the constructor, without assigning them directly. If you have only a few mandatory fields, a constructor is pretty simple to implement, so it won't be worth the effort. If you have a huge constructor with a lot of parameters, then this looks like a code smell. You can use Object Initializer which is pretty straight forward.

No, largely because this pattern's pretty rigid. For example, what if you wanted an argument that wouldn't be set to a field; what'd be the syntax for that? Most solutions you might come up with would either be constraining or about as verbose as the current approach.

Still, that rigidity is only a problem in the general case. If this pattern works for you, then you can define it through inheritance, which is the right tool for this job.

So, you might define a set of generic Tuple<>-like classes that you can inherit from:

public abstract class TupleBase<T1>

{

    public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }



    public TupleBase(T1 argument1)

    {

       this.Argument1 = argument1;

    }

}



public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2>

{

    public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }

    public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }



    public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2)

    {

       this.Argument1 = argument1;

       this.Argument2 = argument2;

    }

}



public abstract class TupleBase<T1, T2, T3>

{

    public T1 Argument1 { get; private set; }

    public T2 Argument2 { get; private set; }

    public T3 Argument3 { get; private set; }



    public TupleBase(T1 argument1, T2 argument2, T3 argument3)

    {

       this.Argument1 = argument1;

       this.Argument2 = argument2;

       this.Argument3 = argument3;

    }

}



//  Etc..

Then

class MyClass

{

    int var1;

    int var2;

    int var3;

    int var4;



    public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){

        this.var1 = var1;

        this.var2 = var2;

        this.var3 = var3;

        this.var4 = var4;

    }

}

becomes

class MyClass : TupleBase<int, int, int, int>

{

    public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4)

        :   base(var1, var2, var3, var4)

    {

    }

}

.

Inheritance is the fundamentally correct tool for this since you want MyClass to pick up on a basic pattern, i.e. inherit it. The problem you'll have in C# is that you can only inherit from one class at-a-time, so you can't just tack on additional functionality like this in all cases.

Alternatively, you could write

class MyClass

{

    int var1;

    int var2;

    int var3;

    int var4;



    public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4){

        this.SetConstructorValues(var1, var2, var3, var4);

    }

}

, where .SetConstructorValues() is a generic extension method

private static System.Collections.ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Action<object, object>> ConstructorSetterDictionary { get; private set; }



public static void SetConstructorValues<T_SetClass>(

            this T_SetClass instanceToSetValuesFor

        ,   params object constructorArguments

    )

{

    var instanceType = typeof(T_SetClass);



    Action<object, object> constructorSetterAction;

    if (!ConstructorSetterDictionary.TryGetValue(

                instanceType

            ,   out constructorSetterAction

        ))

    {

        throw new Exception("Populate the dictionary!  Also change this Exception message; it's from a StackOverflow example and not really designed to actually be written like this.");

    }



    constructorSetterAction(

                instanceToSetValuesFor

            ,   constructorArguments

        );

}

, where ConstructorSetterDictionary is a dictionary of the setter-Action<object, object>'s for each Type, inferred according to whatever logic you like (e.g., matching constructors with parameter names to fields), populated upon program startup using reflection.

Conceptually, getting a method like this based on an object's Type is basically how virtual methods work, where the ConstructorSetterDictionary is a virtual lookup table.

I find this sort of meta-programming to be useful in my own work, but be warned that, at some point, it stops being C#.

You can use tupple "magic".

    class MyClass

    {

        int var1;

        int var2;

        int var3;

        int var4;

        public MyClass(int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4) => (this.var1, this.var2, this.var3, this.var4) = (var1, var2, var3, var4);

    }