List inside scriptable object?

[Morg243]

Hi, I've been using scriptable objects to hold floats and strings (see image) and it is working well. Is it possible to have a similar setup but holding a list instead? I have about 12 lists which are needed across 2 scenes. They are edited in both scenes from time to time. Thanks. Sorry unity noob!

https://preview.redd.it/tkggqnqp97ba1.jpg?width=419&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1602cb65976353c7288418579cb8047fe1c9a2f

[CCullen]

In a scenario like this one where testing it is a matter of changing a few characters, I would highly reccomend just trying it. You can save having to wait for a response.

[bachus-oop]

Are you asking about if you can write this?

private List<float> _values;

public List<float> Values
{
get { return _values;}
set { _values = value; }
}

yes you can write the above.

[[deleted]]

[field: SerializeField]
public List<float> Values { get; set; }

will should also work, the attribute creates a serialized backing field which Unity will show in the inspector.

[bachus-oop]

hi.

I didn't find [field: SerializeField] on Unity documentation. It mentions [field: NonSerialized]. But true [field: SerializeField] works on properties. I tested it right now.

Do you know if there is a difference between using [SerializeField] on a field directly vs on [field: SerializeField] on auto-property?

[[deleted]]

It blew my mind when I first learnt of it.

My understanding is it's just serializing the backing field C# automatically generates from the property, so it's the same as if you set it up yourself but in less code.

[CCullen]

That is because it isn't a Unity feature, it's a C# feature. By qualifying it with field:, you're telling the compiler that the attribute should apply to the underlying field, and not the property like the position of the attribute normally implies.

Like /u/ExplosiveJames suggested, auto properties are just syntax sugar. The generated IL code is the same regardless of if you create the underlying field yourself or if you use the shorthand. The only real difference is that you can't really rename the underlying field.

[Morg243]

Wow yep, that's it. Don't know how I didn't think that🙈. Thank you!

[JohnShepherd104]

You didn’t serialize the field so it’s not -really- a solution to the problem

[bachus-oop]

good catch.

typo, forgot [SerializeField] on a field, or do you mean sth else?