Are both the below same? If yes, then what's the point of this optimization? For example - suppose I want to keep code readable and say have multiple lines of code in the get/set then I MUST use Sample 2 approach?
Sample 1:
public class SaleItem
{
string _name;
public string Name
{
get => _name;
set => _name = value;
}
}
Sample 2:
public class SaleItem
{
string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name=value; }
}
}
Yes. It's same things. https://sharplab.io/#v2:CYLg1APgAgTAjAWAFBQMwAJboMoEMA2ApgJIAuhAtsgN7Lr1RwAM6A+gHa4WEDcydDDIxYA5LoQHpaSerPQBzQqXQBeAHxtO3PjLnoAzktUaO41egBuBAK69JAX2T2gA
public class SaleItem
{
string _name;
public string Name
{
get => _name;
set => _name = value;
}
}
it's decomplie to
public class SaleItem
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
}
Are both the below same?
Yes
If yes, then what's the point of this optimization?
I personally don't feel there is one, and I use the {} approach
For example - suppose I want to keep code readable and say have multiple lines of code in the get/set then I MUST use Sample 2 approach?
Yes. If you think about it, the way you'd normally write a multi line value-returning expression (enclose it in braces, put a return at the end) makes it 2 chars longer for the =>
public string Name{
get => {
if(x==y) return a;
return b;
}
}
public string Name{
get {
if(x==y) return a;
return b;
}
}
so there doesn't seem much point supporting it
What does an expression bodied property give you? Saves you a few bytes of not having to type return in the get. You don't save anything on the curly braces because you have to type =>
If you're going to have "simple get/set that just returns/sets a backing field" you can tidy the code down to just
public string Name{get;set;}
and skip the backing field part (use the property within the class to get/set the value)
If you're going to have a read only property and backing field you can:
public string Name => _name;
The other two options (in your question) are identical; pick whichever one you think looks tidier
If you're making a class that mostly holds data you can simplify your life by using a record:
public record SaleItem(string Name);
That's all you need to type, and it functions like the class you have there in terms of being a reference type and having an externally visible property Name. You add more props between the parentheses, and the compiler generates a constructor for you that looks the same:
var s = new SaleItem("socks");
As well as overriding equals and some other good stuff. See here