Create a delegate from a property getter or setter method

Question

To create a delegate from a method you can use the compile type-safe syntax:

private int Method() { ... }

// and create the delegate to Method...
Func<int> d = Method;

A property is a wrapper around a getter and setter method, and I want to create a delegate to a property getter method. Something like

public int Prop { get; set; }

Func<int> d = Prop;
// or...
Func<int> d = Prop_get;

Which doesn't work, unfortunately. I have to create a separate lambda method, which seems unnecessary when the getter method matches the delegate signature anyway:

Func<int> d = () => Prop;

In order to use the delegate method directly, I have to use nasty reflection, which isn't compile type-safe:

// something like this, not tested...
MethodInfo m = GetType().GetProperty("Prop").GetGetMethod();
Func<int> d = (Func<int>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<int>), m);

Is there any way of creating a delegate on a property getting method directly in a compile-safe way, similar to creating a delegate on a normal method at the top, without needing to use an intermediate lambda method?

Answer 1

As far as I can tell, you have already written down all "valid" variants. Since it isn't possible to explicitly address a getter or setter in normal code (without reflection, that is), I don't think that there is a way to do what you want.

Answer 2

The trick is that a Property is really just a facade on the actual getter and/or setter methods which are hidden. The compiler emits these method(s) and names them according to the name of the Property prepended with get_ and set_ , respectively. In the example below it would be int get_Value() and void set_Value(int) . So just bypass the so-called "property" and just go straight for those methods.

With either the getter and/or setter method we have two options.

• We can create a bound delegate which has the this value for some instance "burned-in." This is similar to what you expect for the property itself, ie, this delegate will only be good for accessing that one runtime instance. The advantage is that, because the delegate is permanently bound to its instance, you don't have to pass in an extra argument.

• The other option is to create delegates which aren't associated with a specific target instance. Although these call the exact same property-accessor methods as before, in this case the Target property of the delegate itself is empty/null. Lacking any this pointer to use, the method signature for an unbound delegate is altered to reveal the famous " hidden this " pointer.

Further discussion below, but first here's the code. It illustrates all the four cases, getter/setter -vs- bound/unbound.

partial class Cls
{
    static Cls()
    {
        UnboundGet = create<Func<Cls, int>>(null, mi_get);
        UnboundSet = create<Action<Cls, int>>(null, mi_set);
    }

    public Cls()
    {
        BoundGet = create<Func<int>>(this, mi_get);
        BoundSet = create<Action<int>>(this, mi_set);
    }

    public readonly static Func<Cls, int> UnboundGet;
    public readonly static Action<Cls, int> UnboundSet;

    public readonly Func<int> BoundGet;
    public readonly Action<int> BoundSet;

    public int Value { get; set; }
};

_{nb, this refers to some helper code that's included at the bottom of this post}

To summarize, the "true signature" of the instance method is identical to the bound delegate case, but gets cancelled off. Bound delegates take care of providing it, as the first argument, by supplying the instance they carry around in that Target property. Unbound delegates are universal so you never need more than just a single getter/setter pair per-property. They can be used to to access that instance property on any past, present, or future runtime instance, but this means you have to explicitly pass a desired target this object in as the first argument every time you invoke the getter/setter.

Note also that even though unbound delegates here are accessing instance properties or methods, you don't actually need any viable runtime instance of Cls to create the delegate.

---

Here's a demo.

static class demo
{
    static demo()
    {
        var c1 = new Cls { Value = 111 };
        var c2 = new Cls { Value = 222 };

        Console.WriteLine("c1: {0}  c2: {1}", c1, c2);

        c1.BoundSet(c1.Value + 444);
        Cls.UnboundSet(c2, c2.BoundGet() + 444);

        Console.WriteLine("c1: {0}  c2: {1}", c1, c2);
    }
};

And the output:

 c1: 111 111 111 c2: 222 222 222 \nc1: 555 555 555 c2: 666 666 666  

---

Finally, here's some helper stuff I put down here to reduce clutter. Note that the MethodInfo s can be cached and reused if you plan on building lots of bound delegates. If you instead prefer to use the unbound (static) delegates, you won't need to keep them around; because unbound delegates work universally for any instance, so you might decide you never need to create any bound delegates.

partial class Cls
{
    static MethodInfo mi_get = typeof(Cls).GetMethod("get_Value"),
                      mi_set = typeof(Cls).GetMethod("set_Value");

    static T create<T>(Object _this, MethodInfo mi) =>
        (T)(Object)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(T), _this, mi);

    public override String ToString() =>
            String.Format("{0} {1} {2}", Value, BoundGet(), Cls.UnboundGet(this));
}

Answer 3

Another option (in .NET 3.0 and newer) would be to use a DependencyProperty instead of a traditional property. Then you can pass around the DependencyProperty object (instead of passing around a delegate), and call GetValue() or SetValue() when needed.

(Yes, I know this is an old question, but it was one of the top posts when I was trying to do something very similar.)

Answer 4

Having spent several hours puzzling this out, here is a solution for when you need to make fast property accessors from another class. Such as if you need to write a cached property map for previously unknown classes that have no klnowledge of that CreateDelegate magic.

A simple innocent data class, such as this one:

public class DataClass
{
    public int SomeProp { get; set; }
    public DataClass(int value) => SomeProp = value;
}

The universal accessor class, where T1 is the type of class that contains a property and T2 is the type of that property looks like this:

public class PropAccessor<T1, T2>
{
    public readonly Func<T1, T2> Get;
    public readonly Action<T1, T2> Set;

    public PropAccessor(string propName)
    {
        Type t = typeof(T1);
        MethodInfo getter = t.GetMethod("get_" + propName);
        MethodInfo setter = t.GetMethod("set_" + propName);

        Get = (Func<T1, T2>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T1, T2>), null, getter);
        Set = (Action<T1, T2>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<T1, T2>), null, setter);
    }
}

And then you can do:

var data = new DataClass(100);

var accessor = new PropAccessor<DataClass, int>("SomeProp");

log(accessor.Get(data));
accessor.Set(data, 200);
log(accessor.Get(data));

Basically, you can traverse your classes with reflection at startup and make a cache of PropAccessors for each property, giving you reasonably fast access.

Edit: a few more hours later..

Ended up with something like this. The abstract ancestor to PropAccessor was necessary, so that I could actually declare a field of that type in the Prop class, without resorting to use of dynamic. Ended up approximately 10x faster than with MethodInfo.Invoke for getters and setters.

internal abstract class Accessor
{
    public abstract void MakeAccessors(PropertyInfo pi);
    public abstract object Get(object obj);
    public abstract void Set(object obj, object value);
}

internal class PropAccessor<T1, T2> : Accessor
{
    private Func<T1, T2>    _get;
    private Action<T1, T2>  _set;

    public override object Get(object obj) => _get((T1)obj);
    public override void Set(object obj, object value) => _set((T1)obj, (T2)value);

    public PropAccessor() { }

    public override void MakeAccessors(PropertyInfo pi)
    {
        _get = (Func<T1, T2>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T1, T2>), null, pi.GetMethod);
        _set = (Action<T1, T2>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<T1, T2>), null, pi.SetMethod);
    }
}

internal class Prop
{
    public string name;
    public int length;
    public int offset;
    public PropType type;
    public Accessor accessor;
}

internal class PropMap
{
    public UInt16 length;
    public List<Prop> props;

    internal PropMap()
    {
        length = 0;
        props = new List<Prop>();
    }

    internal Prop Add(PropType propType, UInt16 size, PropertyInfo propInfo)
    {
        Prop p = new Prop()
        {
            name   = propInfo.Name,
            length = size,
            offset = this.length,
            type   = propType,
            Encode = encoder,
            Decode = decoder,
        };

        Type accessorType = typeof(PropAccessor<,>).MakeGenericType(propInfo.DeclaringType, propInfo.PropertyType);
        p.accessor = (Accessor)Activator.CreateInstance(accessorType);
        p.accessor.MakeAccessors(propInfo);

        this.length += size;
        props.Add(p);
        return p;
    }
}