Overriding fields or properties in subclasses

Question

I have an abstract base class and I want to declare a field or a property that will have a different value in each class that inherits from this parent class    I want to define it in the baseclass so I can reference it in a base class method - for example overriding ToString to say  This object is of type property field   I have got three ways that I can see of doing this  but I was wondering - what is the best or accepted way of doing this  Newbie question  sorry   Option 1  Use an abstract Property and override it on the inherited classes  This benefits from being enforced  you have to override it  and it is clean  But  it feels slightly wrong to return a hard-code value rather than encapsulate a field and it is a few lines of code instead of just  I also have to declare a body for  set  but that is less important  and there is probably a way to avoid that which I am not aware of     abstract class Father       abstract public int MyInt   get  set      class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get   return 1            set               Option 2 I can declare a public field  or a protected field  and explicitly override it in the inherited class  The example below will give me a warning to use  new  and I can probably do that  but it feels wrong and it breaks the polymorphism  which was the whole point  Doesn t seem like a good idea     abstract class Mother       public int MyInt   0     class Daughter   Mother       public int MyInt   1      Option 3 I can use a protected field and set the value in the constructor  This seems pretty tidy but relies on me ensuring the constructor always sets this and with multiple overloaded constructors there is always a chance some code path won t set the value   abstract class Aunt       protected int MyInt     class Niece   Aunt       public Niece                 MyInt   1            It s a bit of a theoretical question and I guess the answer has to be option 1 as it is the only safe option but I am just getting to grips with C  and wanted to ask this of people with more experience

User · Answer

You could do this  class x       private int  myInt      public virtual int myInt   get   return  myInt    set    myInt   value         class y   x       private int  myYInt      public override int myInt   get   return  myYInt    set    myYInt   value          virtual lets you get a property a body that does something and still lets sub-classes override it

User · Answer

I d go with option 3  but have an abstract setMyInt method that subclasses are forced to implement  This way you won t have the problem of a derived class forgetting to set it in the constructor   abstract class Base     protected int myInt   protected abstract void setMyInt       class Derived   Base     override protected void setMyInt         myInt   3         By the way  with option one  if you don t specify set  in your abstract base class property  the derived class won t have to implement it   abstract class Father       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get   return 1

User · Answer

Of the three solutions only Option 1 is polymorphic    Fields by themselves cannot be overridden  Which is exactly why Option 2 returns the  new keyword warning    The solution to the warning is not to append the    new    keyword  but to implement Option 1    If you need your field to be polymorphic you need to wrap it in a Property   Option 3 is OK if you don   t need polymorphic behavior  You should remember though  that when at runtime the property MyInt is accessed  the derived class has no control on the value returned  The base class by itself is capable of returning this value   This is how a truly polymorphic implementation of your property might look  allowing the derived classes to be in control   abstract class Parent       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Father   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  X  and return a value               class Mother   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  Y  and return a value

User · Answer

You can go with option 3 if you modify your abstract base class to require the property value in the constructor  you won t miss any paths  I d really consider this option   abstract class Aunt       protected int MyInt      protected Aunt int myInt                MyInt   myInt             Of course  you then still have the option of making the field private and then  depending on the need  exposing a protected or public property getter

User · Answer

You could define something like this   abstract class Father         Do you need it public      protected readonly int MyInt     class Son   Father       public Son                 MyInt   1            By setting the value as readonly  it ensures that the value for that class remains unchanged for the lifetime of the object   I suppose the next question is  why do you need it

User · Answer

I d go with option 3  but have an abstract setMyInt method that subclasses are forced to implement  This way you won t have the problem of a derived class forgetting to set it in the constructor   abstract class Base     protected int myInt   protected abstract void setMyInt       class Derived   Base     override protected void setMyInt         myInt   3         By the way  with option one  if you don t specify set  in your abstract base class property  the derived class won t have to implement it   abstract class Father       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get   return 1

User · Answer

Option 2 is a non-starter - you can t override fields  you can only hide them   Personally  I d go for option 1 every time  I try to keep fields private at all times  That s if you really need to be able to override the property at all  of course  Another option is to have a read-only property in the base class which is set from a constructor parameter   abstract class Mother       private readonly int myInt      public int MyInt   get   return myInt           protected Mother int myInt                this myInt   myInt           class Daughter   Mother       public Daughter     base 1                  That s probably the most appropriate approach if the value doesn t change over the lifetime of the instance

User · Answer

I d go with option 3  but have an abstract setMyInt method that subclasses are forced to implement  This way you won t have the problem of a derived class forgetting to set it in the constructor   abstract class Base     protected int myInt   protected abstract void setMyInt       class Derived   Base     override protected void setMyInt         myInt   3         By the way  with option one  if you don t specify set  in your abstract base class property  the derived class won t have to implement it   abstract class Father       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get   return 1

User · Answer

If you are building a class and you want there to be a base value for the property  then use the virtual keyword in the base class   This allows you to optionally override the property     Using your example above     you may want to also use interfaces  interface IFather       int MyInt   get  set        public class Father   IFather         defaulting the value of this property to 1     private int myInt   1       public virtual int MyInt               get   return myInt            set   myInt   value             public class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get                  demonstrating that you can access base properties               this will return 1 from the base class             int baseInt   base MyInt                 add 1 and return new value             return baseInt   1                    set                         sets the value of the property             base MyInt   value                      In a program   Son son   new Son      son MyInt will equal 2

User · Answer

option 2 is a bad idea   It will result in something called shadowing   Basically you have two different  MyInt  members  one in the mother  and the other in the daughter   The problem with this  is that methods that are implemented in the mother will reference the mother s  MyInt  while methods implemented in the daughter will reference the daughter s  MyInt    this can cause some serious readability issues  and confusion later down the line   Personally  I think the best option is 3  because it provides a clear centralized value  and can be referenced internally by children without the hassle of defining their own fields -- which is the problem with option 1

User · Answer

Of the three solutions only Option 1 is polymorphic    Fields by themselves cannot be overridden  Which is exactly why Option 2 returns the  new keyword warning    The solution to the warning is not to append the    new    keyword  but to implement Option 1    If you need your field to be polymorphic you need to wrap it in a Property   Option 3 is OK if you don   t need polymorphic behavior  You should remember though  that when at runtime the property MyInt is accessed  the derived class has no control on the value returned  The base class by itself is capable of returning this value   This is how a truly polymorphic implementation of your property might look  allowing the derived classes to be in control   abstract class Parent       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Father   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  X  and return a value               class Mother   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  Y  and return a value

User · Answer

option 2 is a bad idea   It will result in something called shadowing   Basically you have two different  MyInt  members  one in the mother  and the other in the daughter   The problem with this  is that methods that are implemented in the mother will reference the mother s  MyInt  while methods implemented in the daughter will reference the daughter s  MyInt    this can cause some serious readability issues  and confusion later down the line   Personally  I think the best option is 3  because it provides a clear centralized value  and can be referenced internally by children without the hassle of defining their own fields -- which is the problem with option 1

User · Answer

You could do this  class x       private int  myInt      public virtual int myInt   get   return  myInt    set    myInt   value         class y   x       private int  myYInt      public override int myInt   get   return  myYInt    set    myYInt   value          virtual lets you get a property a body that does something and still lets sub-classes override it

User · Answer

You can go with option 3 if you modify your abstract base class to require the property value in the constructor  you won t miss any paths  I d really consider this option   abstract class Aunt       protected int MyInt      protected Aunt int myInt                MyInt   myInt             Of course  you then still have the option of making the field private and then  depending on the need  exposing a protected or public property getter

User · Answer

You could define something like this   abstract class Father         Do you need it public      protected readonly int MyInt     class Son   Father       public Son                 MyInt   1            By setting the value as readonly  it ensures that the value for that class remains unchanged for the lifetime of the object   I suppose the next question is  why do you need it

User · Answer

I d go with option 3  but have an abstract setMyInt method that subclasses are forced to implement  This way you won t have the problem of a derived class forgetting to set it in the constructor   abstract class Base     protected int myInt   protected abstract void setMyInt       class Derived   Base     override protected void setMyInt         myInt   3         By the way  with option one  if you don t specify set  in your abstract base class property  the derived class won t have to implement it   abstract class Father       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get   return 1

User · Answer

You could define something like this   abstract class Father         Do you need it public      protected readonly int MyInt     class Son   Father       public Son                 MyInt   1            By setting the value as readonly  it ensures that the value for that class remains unchanged for the lifetime of the object   I suppose the next question is  why do you need it

User · Answer

I did this     namespace Core Text Menus       public abstract class AbstractBaseClass               public string SELECT MODEL          public string BROWSE RECORDS          public string SETUP           namespace Core Text Menus       public class English   AbstractBaseClass               public English                         base SELECT MODEL    Select Model               base BROWSE RECORDS    Browse Measurements               base SETUP    Setup Instrument                       This way you can still use fields

User · Answer

If you are building a class and you want there to be a base value for the property  then use the virtual keyword in the base class   This allows you to optionally override the property     Using your example above     you may want to also use interfaces  interface IFather       int MyInt   get  set        public class Father   IFather         defaulting the value of this property to 1     private int myInt   1       public virtual int MyInt               get   return myInt            set   myInt   value             public class Son   Father       public override int MyInt               get                  demonstrating that you can access base properties               this will return 1 from the base class             int baseInt   base MyInt                 add 1 and return new value             return baseInt   1                    set                         sets the value of the property             base MyInt   value                      In a program   Son son   new Son      son MyInt will equal 2

User · Answer

I did this     namespace Core Text Menus       public abstract class AbstractBaseClass               public string SELECT MODEL          public string BROWSE RECORDS          public string SETUP           namespace Core Text Menus       public class English   AbstractBaseClass               public English                         base SELECT MODEL    Select Model               base BROWSE RECORDS    Browse Measurements               base SETUP    Setup Instrument                       This way you can still use fields

User · Answer

Of the three solutions only Option 1 is polymorphic    Fields by themselves cannot be overridden  Which is exactly why Option 2 returns the  new keyword warning    The solution to the warning is not to append the    new    keyword  but to implement Option 1    If you need your field to be polymorphic you need to wrap it in a Property   Option 3 is OK if you don   t need polymorphic behavior  You should remember though  that when at runtime the property MyInt is accessed  the derived class has no control on the value returned  The base class by itself is capable of returning this value   This is how a truly polymorphic implementation of your property might look  allowing the derived classes to be in control   abstract class Parent       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Father   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  X  and return a value               class Mother   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  Y  and return a value

User · Answer

Option 2 is a non-starter - you can t override fields  you can only hide them   Personally  I d go for option 1 every time  I try to keep fields private at all times  That s if you really need to be able to override the property at all  of course  Another option is to have a read-only property in the base class which is set from a constructor parameter   abstract class Mother       private readonly int myInt      public int MyInt   get   return myInt           protected Mother int myInt                this myInt   myInt           class Daughter   Mother       public Daughter     base 1                  That s probably the most appropriate approach if the value doesn t change over the lifetime of the instance

User · Answer

Option 2 is a non-starter - you can t override fields  you can only hide them   Personally  I d go for option 1 every time  I try to keep fields private at all times  That s if you really need to be able to override the property at all  of course  Another option is to have a read-only property in the base class which is set from a constructor parameter   abstract class Mother       private readonly int myInt      public int MyInt   get   return myInt           protected Mother int myInt                this myInt   myInt           class Daughter   Mother       public Daughter     base 1                  That s probably the most appropriate approach if the value doesn t change over the lifetime of the instance

User · Answer

option 2 is a bad idea   It will result in something called shadowing   Basically you have two different  MyInt  members  one in the mother  and the other in the daughter   The problem with this  is that methods that are implemented in the mother will reference the mother s  MyInt  while methods implemented in the daughter will reference the daughter s  MyInt    this can cause some serious readability issues  and confusion later down the line   Personally  I think the best option is 3  because it provides a clear centralized value  and can be referenced internally by children without the hassle of defining their own fields -- which is the problem with option 1

User · Answer

Of the three solutions only Option 1 is polymorphic    Fields by themselves cannot be overridden  Which is exactly why Option 2 returns the  new keyword warning    The solution to the warning is not to append the    new    keyword  but to implement Option 1    If you need your field to be polymorphic you need to wrap it in a Property   Option 3 is OK if you don   t need polymorphic behavior  You should remember though  that when at runtime the property MyInt is accessed  the derived class has no control on the value returned  The base class by itself is capable of returning this value   This is how a truly polymorphic implementation of your property might look  allowing the derived classes to be in control   abstract class Parent       abstract public int MyInt   get       class Father   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  X  and return a value               class Mother   Parent       public override int MyInt               get      Apply formula  Y  and return a value

User · Answer

You can go with option 3 if you modify your abstract base class to require the property value in the constructor  you won t miss any paths  I d really consider this option   abstract class Aunt       protected int MyInt      protected Aunt int myInt                MyInt   myInt             Of course  you then still have the option of making the field private and then  depending on the need  exposing a protected or public property getter

User · Answer

You could define something like this   abstract class Father         Do you need it public      protected readonly int MyInt     class Son   Father       public Son                 MyInt   1            By setting the value as readonly  it ensures that the value for that class remains unchanged for the lifetime of the object   I suppose the next question is  why do you need it

User · Answer

The example implementation when you want to have an abstract class with implementation  Subclasses must    Parameterize the implementation of an abstract class  Fully inherit the implementation of the abstract class  Have your own implementation    In this case  the properties that are necessary for the implementation should not be available for use except for the abstract class and its own subclass       internal abstract class AbstractClass                 Properties for parameterization from concrete class         protected abstract string Param1   get            protected abstract string Param2   get               Internal fields need for manage state of object         private string var1          private string var2           internal AbstractClass string  var1  string  var2                        this var1    var1              this var2    var2                     internal void CalcResult                           The result calculation uses Param1  Param2  var1  var2                       internal class ConcreteClassFirst   AbstractClass               private string param1          private string param2          protected override string Param1   get   return param1              protected override string Param2   get   return param2               public ConcreteClassFirst string  var1  string  var2    base  var1   var2               internal void CalcParams                           The calculation param1 and param2                      internal class ConcreteClassSecond   AbstractClass               private string param1          private string param2           protected override string Param1   get   return param1               protected override string Param2   get   return param2               public ConcreteClassSecond string  var1  string  var2    base  var1   var2               internal void CalcParams                           The calculation param1 and param2                      static void Main string   args                string var1 1    val1 1           string var1 2    val1 2            ConcreteClassFirst concreteClassFirst   new ConcreteClassFirst var1 1  var1 2           concreteClassFirst CalcParams            concreteClassFirst CalcResult             string var2 1    val2 1           string var2 2    val2 2            ConcreteClassSecond concreteClassSecond   new ConcreteClassSecond var2 1  var2 2           concreteClassSecond CalcParams            concreteClassSecond CalcResult               Param1 and Param2 are not visible in main method

User · Answer

The example implementation when you want to have an abstract class with implementation  Subclasses must    Parameterize the implementation of an abstract class  Fully inherit the implementation of the abstract class  Have your own implementation    In this case  the properties that are necessary for the implementation should not be available for use except for the abstract class and its own subclass       internal abstract class AbstractClass                 Properties for parameterization from concrete class         protected abstract string Param1   get            protected abstract string Param2   get               Internal fields need for manage state of object         private string var1          private string var2           internal AbstractClass string  var1  string  var2                        this var1    var1              this var2    var2                     internal void CalcResult                           The result calculation uses Param1  Param2  var1  var2                       internal class ConcreteClassFirst   AbstractClass               private string param1          private string param2          protected override string Param1   get   return param1              protected override string Param2   get   return param2               public ConcreteClassFirst string  var1  string  var2    base  var1   var2               internal void CalcParams                           The calculation param1 and param2                      internal class ConcreteClassSecond   AbstractClass               private string param1          private string param2           protected override string Param1   get   return param1               protected override string Param2   get   return param2               public ConcreteClassSecond string  var1  string  var2    base  var1   var2               internal void CalcParams                           The calculation param1 and param2                      static void Main string   args                string var1 1    val1 1           string var1 2    val1 2            ConcreteClassFirst concreteClassFirst   new ConcreteClassFirst var1 1  var1 2           concreteClassFirst CalcParams            concreteClassFirst CalcResult             string var2 1    val2 1           string var2 2    val2 2            ConcreteClassSecond concreteClassSecond   new ConcreteClassSecond var2 1  var2 2           concreteClassSecond CalcParams            concreteClassSecond CalcResult               Param1 and Param2 are not visible in main method

User · Answer

You can go with option 3 if you modify your abstract base class to require the property value in the constructor  you won t miss any paths  I d really consider this option   abstract class Aunt       protected int MyInt      protected Aunt int myInt                MyInt   myInt             Of course  you then still have the option of making the field private and then  depending on the need  exposing a protected or public property getter

User · Answer

Option 2 is a non-starter - you can t override fields  you can only hide them   Personally  I d go for option 1 every time  I try to keep fields private at all times  That s if you really need to be able to override the property at all  of course  Another option is to have a read-only property in the base class which is set from a constructor parameter   abstract class Mother       private readonly int myInt      public int MyInt   get   return myInt           protected Mother int myInt                this myInt   myInt           class Daughter   Mother       public Daughter     base 1                  That s probably the most appropriate approach if the value doesn t change over the lifetime of the instance

User · Answer

option 2 is a bad idea   It will result in something called shadowing   Basically you have two different  MyInt  members  one in the mother  and the other in the daughter   The problem with this  is that methods that are implemented in the mother will reference the mother s  MyInt  while methods implemented in the daughter will reference the daughter s  MyInt    this can cause some serious readability issues  and confusion later down the line   Personally  I think the best option is 3  because it provides a clear centralized value  and can be referenced internally by children without the hassle of defining their own fields -- which is the problem with option 1

[c#] Overriding fields or properties in subclasses

Examples related to c#

Examples related to properties

Examples related to field