Styjun

Is there a way to generate uniformly distributed points on a sphere from a fixed amount of random real numbers per point?

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?

How to determine omitted units in a publication

For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?

Can a flute soloist sit?

Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

Example of compact Riemannian manifold with only one geodesic.

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Using dividends to reduce short term capital gains?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Identify 80s or 90s comics with ripped creatures (not dwarves)

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

How to make Illustrator type tool selection automatically adapt with text length

How to handle characters who are more educated than the author?

Huge performance difference of the command find with and without using %M option to show permissions

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

Restrict access to property from outside the class [duplicate]

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;

0

This question already has an answer here:

• 
  IEnumerable vs IReadonlyCollection vs ReadonlyCollection for exposing a list member
  
  3 answers
  
  

Let's have this class:

ExampleClass

 public List<string> MyValue get; set; 

The question is how to restrict outside classes to modify of that property, means add object to collection, make new().

c#

share|improve this question

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

marked as duplicate by Ian Mercer c#
Users with the  c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Mar 22 at 5:58

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

add a comment | 

0

This question already has an answer here:

• 
  IEnumerable vs IReadonlyCollection vs ReadonlyCollection for exposing a list member
  
  3 answers
  
  

Let's have this class:

ExampleClass

 public List<string> MyValue get; set; 

The question is how to restrict outside classes to modify of that property, means add object to collection, make new().

c#

share|improve this question

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

marked as duplicate by Ian Mercer c#
Users with the  c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Mar 22 at 5:58

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

add a comment | 

This question already has an answer here:

• 
  IEnumerable vs IReadonlyCollection vs ReadonlyCollection for exposing a list member
  
  3 answers
  
  

Let's have this class:

ExampleClass

 public List<string> MyValue get; set; 

The question is how to restrict outside classes to modify of that property, means add object to collection, make new().

c#

share|improve this question

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

ExampleClass

 public List<string> MyValue get; set; 

share|improve this question

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

share|improve this question

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

asked Mar 22 at 5:52

abcabc

92

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

0

you can have something like this

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> MyValue get; private set;

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

add a comment | 

0

You could expose it as IEnumerable<string> instead of as a list. This interface will not allow adds. You can still store it as a list internally, as a private field, so that the class itself can add or remove if needed.

For example:

class ExampleClass

 private List<string> _myValue = new List<string>();

 public IEnumerable<string> MyValue
 
 get
 
 foreach (var s in _myValue) yield return s;
 
 

If the caller would like to work with its own list, it can of course do this:

var list = exampleClass.MyValue.ToList();

At which point the caller owns it and it is clear that anything it chooses to add has nothing to do with the original list.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

add a comment | 

0

you can have something like this

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> MyValue get; private set;

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

add a comment | 

0

you can have something like this

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> MyValue get; private set;

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

add a comment | 

you can have something like this

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> MyValue get; private set;

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

public ReadOnlyCollection<string> MyValue get; private set;

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

answered Mar 22 at 5:58

AsifAsif

594

0

You could expose it as IEnumerable<string> instead of as a list. This interface will not allow adds. You can still store it as a list internally, as a private field, so that the class itself can add or remove if needed.

For example:

class ExampleClass

 private List<string> _myValue = new List<string>();

 public IEnumerable<string> MyValue
 
 get
 
 foreach (var s in _myValue) yield return s;
 
 

If the caller would like to work with its own list, it can of course do this:

var list = exampleClass.MyValue.ToList();

At which point the caller owns it and it is clear that anything it chooses to add has nothing to do with the original list.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

add a comment | 

0

You could expose it as IEnumerable<string> instead of as a list. This interface will not allow adds. You can still store it as a list internally, as a private field, so that the class itself can add or remove if needed.

For example:

class ExampleClass

 private List<string> _myValue = new List<string>();

 public IEnumerable<string> MyValue
 
 get
 
 foreach (var s in _myValue) yield return s;
 
 

If the caller would like to work with its own list, it can of course do this:

var list = exampleClass.MyValue.ToList();

At which point the caller owns it and it is clear that anything it chooses to add has nothing to do with the original list.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

add a comment | 

You could expose it as IEnumerable<string> instead of as a list. This interface will not allow adds. You can still store it as a list internally, as a private field, so that the class itself can add or remove if needed.

For example:

class ExampleClass

 private List<string> _myValue = new List<string>();

 public IEnumerable<string> MyValue
 
 get
 
 foreach (var s in _myValue) yield return s;
 
 

If the caller would like to work with its own list, it can of course do this:

var list = exampleClass.MyValue.ToList();

At which point the caller owns it and it is clear that anything it chooses to add has nothing to do with the original list.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

class ExampleClass

 private List<string> _myValue = new List<string>();

 public IEnumerable<string> MyValue
 
 get
 
 foreach (var s in _myValue) yield return s;
 
 

var list = exampleClass.MyValue.ToList();

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754

answered Mar 22 at 6:01

John WuJohn Wu

31.7k42754