/// <summary>
/// I see no reason why 'in' parameter would ever be used like this
/// Normal ref is pass by value, so assigning it a new value does not impact original reference
/// </summary>
///
public @in()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test of the keyword: in");
parameterObject o = new parameterObject(1);
method2(in o);
Console.WriteLine("\t" + o.Value);
}
public @ref()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test of keyword: ref");
parameterObject o = new parameterObject(1);
Console.WriteLine("\tValue = " + o.Value);
newObject(ref o);
Console.WriteLine("\tValue = " + o.Value);
}
//C# default is pass by value
public PassByValue()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test of Pass by value");
parameterObject o = new parameterObject(1);
Console.WriteLine("\tValue = " + o.Value);
newObject(o);
Console.WriteLine("\tValue = " + o.Value);
changeObject(o);
Console.WriteLine("\tValue = " + o.Value);
}
private void changeObject(parameterObject o)
{
//this does impact the original reference
//this is another reference to the same object, now we change the object and not the reference
o.Value = 2;
}
private void newObject(parameterObject o)
{
//this dos NOT impact the original reference
//this is a copy of the reference
o = new parameterObject(2);
}
private void newObject(ref parameterObject o)
{
//this dos impact the original reference, cuz this is the origal ref
o = new parameterObject(2);
}
private void method(out parameterObject o)
{
o = new parameterObject(2); //must assign it
}
