C# Get property value without creating instance?

Question

Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?

I have this class:

public class MyClass
{
    public string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }

    public MyClass()
    {
    }
}

Now I need get the value "David", without creating instance of MyClass.

Solution 1

Real answer: no. It's an instance property, so you can only call it on an instance. You should either create an instance, or make the property static as shown in other answers.

See MSDN for more information about the difference between static and instance members.

Tongue-in-cheek but still correct answer:

Is it possible to get value without creating an instance ?

Yes, but only via some really horrible code which creates some IL passing in null as this (which you don't use in your property), using a DynamicMethod. Sample code:

// Jon Skeet explicitly disclaims any association with this horrible code.
// THIS CODE IS FOR FUN ONLY. USING IT WILL INCUR WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.
using System;
using System.Reflection.Emit;

public class MyClass
{
    public string Name { get{ return "David"; } }
}


class Test    
{
    static void Main()
    {
        var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
        var dynamicMethod = new DynamicMethod("Ugly", typeof(string), 
                                              Type.EmptyTypes);
        var generator = dynamicMethod.GetILGenerator();
        generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ldnull);
        generator.Emit(OpCodes.Call, method);
        generator.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);
        var ugly = (Func<string>) dynamicMethod.CreateDelegate(
                       typeof(Func<string>));
        Console.WriteLine(ugly());
    }
}

Please don't do this. Ever. It's ghastly. It should be trampled on, cut up into little bits, set on fire, then cut up again. Fun though, isn't it? ;)

This works because it's using call instead of callvirt. Normally the C# compiler would use a callvirt call even if it's not calling a virtual member because that gets null reference checking "for free" (as far as the IL stream is concerned). A non-virtual call like this doesn't check for nullity first, it just invokes the member. If you checked this within the property call, you'd find it's null.

EDIT: As noted by Chris Sinclair, you can do it more simply using an open delegate instance:

var method = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("Name").GetGetMethod();
var openDelegate = (Func<MyClass, string>) Delegate.CreateDelegate
    (typeof(Func<MyClass, string>), method);
Console.WriteLine(openDelegate(null));

(But again, please don't!)

Solution 2

You can make that property static

public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } } 

Usage:

MyClass.Name;

Solution 3

You requirements do seem strange, but I think you're looking for some kind of metadata. You can use an attribute to achieve this:

public class NameAttribute : Attribute {
  public string Name { get; private set; }
  public NameAttribute(string name) {
    Name = name;
  }
}

[Name("George")]
public class Dad { 
  public string Name { 
    get { 
      return NameGetter.For(this.GetType()); 
    }
  }
}

[Name("Frank")]
public class Son : Dad {
}

public static class NameGetter {
  public static string For<T>() {
    return For(typeof(T));
  }
  public static string For(Type type) {
    // add error checking ...
    return ((NameAttribute)type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(NameAttribute), false)[0]).Name;
  }
}

Now this code can get names with and without instances:

Console.WriteLine(new Dad().Name);
Console.WriteLine(new Son().Name);
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Dad>());
Console.WriteLine(NameGetter.For<Son>());

Solution 4

You can make your property static, as pointed out by many others.

public static string Name{ get{ return "David"; } }

Be aware that this means your instances of MyClass will no longer have their own Name property, since static members belong to the class, not the individual object instances of it.

Edit: In a note, you mentioned that you want to override the Name property in subclasses. At the same time, you want to be able to access it at the class level (access it without creating an instance of your class).

For the static properties, you would simply create a new Name property in each class. Since they are static, you're always (almost always, yay reflection) going to access them using a specific class, so you'd be specifying which version of Name you want to get. If you want to try and hack polymorphism in there and get the name from any given subclass of MyClass, you could do so using reflection, but I wouldn't recommend doing so.

Using the example from your comment:

public class Dad 
{ 
    public static string Name { get { return "George"; }
}

public class Son : Dad
{
    public static string Name { get{ return "Frank"; }
}

public static void Test()
{
    Console.WriteLine(Dad.Name); // prints "George"
    Console.WriteLine(Son.Name); // prints "Frank"
    Dad actuallyASon = new Son();
    PropertyInfo nameProp = actuallyASon.GetType().GetProperty("Name");
    Console.WriteLine(nameProp.GetValue(actuallyASon, null)); // prints "Frank"
}

As a side note, since you are declaring a property that has only a getter and it is returning a constant value, I recommend possibly using a const or static readonly variable instead.

public const string Name = "David";
public static readonly string Name = "David";

Usage for both would be the same:

string name = MyClass.Name;

The main benefit (and drawback) of const is that all references to it are actually replaced by its value when the code is compiled. That means it will be a little faster, but if you ever change its value, you will need to recompile ALL code that references it.

Solution 5

Whenever you write C# code, always check if your method and property getter/setter code does anything at all with other instance members of the class. If they don't, be sure to apply the static keyword. Certainly the case here, it trivially solves your problem.

The reason I really post to this question is that there's a bit of language bias at work in some of the answers. The C# rule that you can't call an instance method on a null object is a specific C# language rule. It is without a doubt a very wise one, it really helps to troubleshoot NullReferenceExceptions, they are raised at the call site instead of somewhere inside of a method where it gets very hard to diagnose that the this reference is null.

But this is certainly not a requirement to the CLR, nor of every language that run on the CLR. In fact, even C# doesn't enforce it consistently, you can readily bypass it in an extension method:

public static class Extensions {
    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string obj) {
        return obj != null && obj.Length > 0;
    }
}
...
        string s = null;
        bool empty = s.IsNullOrEmpty();    // Fine

And using your property from a language that doesn't have the same rule works fine as well. Like C++/CLI:

#include "stdafx.h"

using namespace System;
using namespace ClassLibrary1;    // Add reference

int main(array<System::String ^> ^args)
{
    MyClass^ obj = nullptr;
    String^ name = obj->Name;     // Fine
    Console::WriteLine(name);
    return 0;
}

View more solutions

Comments

[user1475694]

Thanks all for response. But i need to override the Name properties: public class Dad { public virtual string Name { get { return "George"; } } public Dad() { } } public class Son : Dad { public override string Name { get{ return "Frank"; } } public Son() : base() { } } Can be static overriden?

[Jon Skeet]

@R.MartinhoFernandes: Absolutely :) To be fair, it's been a little while since I've written any evil code. I'll add more disclaimers etc to the code.

[Ray Hayes]

Whilst I'm most impressed, I almost want to down-vote this answer out of existence in case someone reads almost all of it, except the "don't do it" part!

[Chris Sinclair]

@JonSkeet could you use the technique pointed out here to avoid the IL generation? stackoverflow.com/questions/951624/… EDIT: hmm, maybe not. That's for methods, not properties.

[Jon Skeet]

@ChrisSinclair: Possibly. Will give it a go.

[radbyx]

I don't understand it all but I still feel impressed ^^

[Jon Senchyna]

Static properties cannot be virtual, but then, you don't need them to be, since you're accessing them at the class level, which means you're always specifying which class' Name property you want to access.

[Jon Skeet]

@ChrisSinclair: Nice one - I've edited the code into the answer.

[Chris Sinclair]

@JonSkeet: you're welcome! My favourite part of all of this is having a NullReferenceException being thrown for something as simple as this.Name :D Like the impossible happened and worlds are colliding and dividing by zero.

[Michiel van Oosterhout]

+1 because I think this answer is more helpful to the OP than the exercise in futility that currently scores higher.

[Jon Skeet]

@michielvoo: Well, you could argue that the start of my answer gives two options - either make the property static, or create an instance. This answer only gives one :) But yes, I didn't give examples of how to make the property static, as other answers had already covered that ground. I also believe it's useful to give answers which give information to people other than the OP too.

[vikiiii]

@JonSkeet Is the same thing possible to implement in Java?

[Jon Skeet]

@vikiiii: I don't know, I'm afraid.

[vikiiii]

@JonSkeet Ok.then I will give it a try.But I'm afraid too.Bcoz if you don't know then 99.99999.. % chances are that it is not possible.

[Jon Skeet]

@vikiiii: Nah, I know relatively little about the innards of Java, compared with .NET.

[vikiiii]

@JonSkeet ok.let me try and give you the answer then.Wish me luck.:)

[3Doubloons]

PropertyInfo.GetGetMethod is my new favourite method name

[avirk]

@JonSkeet is saying he afraid! However I'm little bit afraid for Java compiler now.

[avirk]

Ah this is the must accepted answer. If I was the OP then I must.

[Odys]

I though I knew c#.. Mind = Blown

[lesderid]

+1 for saying that the instances of MyClass won't have a Name property anymore. Side note: Dad deriving from son? Not every son is a dad, but every dad is a son. :P

[Jon Senchyna]

That is very true. I agree that the inheritance chain in this example is wacky, but I was just using the scheme from the example given in the comments above.

[Paddy]

This is somewhat akin to giving a monkey a revolver with a single bullet in it and telling them to go and play...