I have a list of structs and I want to change one element. For example :
MyList.Add(new MyStruct("john"); MyList.Add(new MyStruct("peter");
Now I want to change one element:
MyList[1].Name = "bob"
However, whenever I try and do this I get the following error:
Cannot modify the return value of System.Collections.Generic.List.this[int]‘ because it is not a variable
If I use a list of classes, the problem doesn't occur.
I guess the answer has to do with structs being a value type.
So, if I have a list of structs should I treat them as read-only? If I need to change elements in a list then I should use classes and not structs?
Even though we defined x within the struct as a var property, we cannot change it, because origin is defined using let . This has some major advantages. For example, if you read a line like let point = ... , and you know that point is a struct variable, then you also know that it will never, ever, change.
Claiming mutable structs are evil is like claiming mutable int s, bool s, and all other value types are evil. There are cases for mutability and for immutability. Those cases hinge on the role the data plays, not the type of memory allocation/sharing.
Yes they can. It depends. Many hold the stance that a struct should be immutable, and in this case, holding a reference to an object could mean it isn't.
A struct is a value type, so it's always passed as a value. A value can either be a reference type (object) or a value type (struct).
Not quite. Designing a type as class or struct shouldn't be driven by your need to store it in collections :) You should look at the 'semantics' needed
The problem you're seeing is due to value type semantics. Each value type variable/reference is a new instance. When you say
Struct obItem = MyList[1];
what happens is that a new instance of the struct is created and all members are copied one by one. So that you have a clone of MyList[1] i.e. 2 instances. Now if you modify obItem, it doesn't affect the original.
obItem.Name = "Gishu"; // MyList[1].Name still remains "peter"
Now bear with me for 2 mins here (This takes a while to gulp down.. it did for me :) If you really need structs to be stored in a collection and modified like you indicated in your question, you'll have to make your struct expose an interface (However this will result in boxing). You can then modify the actual struct via an interface reference, which refers to the boxed object.
The following code snippet illustrates what I just said above
public interface IMyStructModifier { String Name { set; } } public struct MyStruct : IMyStructModifier ... List<Object> obList = new List<object>(); obList.Add(new MyStruct("ABC")); obList.Add(new MyStruct("DEF")); MyStruct temp = (MyStruct)obList[1]; temp.Name = "Gishu"; foreach (MyStruct s in obList) // => "ABC", "DEF" { Console.WriteLine(s.Name); } IMyStructModifier temp2 = obList[1] as IMyStructModifier; temp2.Name = "Now Gishu"; foreach (MyStruct s in obList) // => "ABC", "Now Gishu" { Console.WriteLine(s.Name); }
HTH. Good Question.
Update: @Hath - you had me running to check if I overlooked something that simple. (It would be inconsistent if setter properties dont and methods did - the .Net universe is still balanced :)
Setter method doesn't work
obList2[1] returns a copy whose state would be modified. Original struct in list stays unmodified. So Set-via-Interface seems to be only way to do it.
List<MyStruct> obList2 = new List<MyStruct>(); obList2.Add(new MyStruct("ABC")); obList2.Add(new MyStruct("DEF")); obList2[1].SetName("WTH"); foreach (MyStruct s in obList2) // => "ABC", "DEF" { Console.WriteLine(s.Name); }
MyList[1] = new MyStruct("bob");
structs in C# should almost always be designed to be immutable (that is, have no way to change their internal state once they have been created).
In your case, what you want to do is to replace the entire struct in specified array index, not to try to change just a single property or field.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With