I'm trying to pass a method that returns a string with an out parameter as a boolean. based on if the method that returns the string, returns the same string.
Barebone sample code that doesn't work because the lambda is invalid:
class Class1 {
void Foo () {
s = "some value";
if (() => { (Class2.Foo(s, out s)); })
return; // Do stuff here
}
}
public static class Class2 {
string Foo(string s, out string _s) {
bool ok = true; // HACK
_s = "";
return ok ? _s : s;
}
}
How, if possible, can I make this work properly by only changing/replacing the lambda expression?
Edit: Seems like I've been asking this a bit backwards and silly. Here is more generalized version on what I'm trying to accomplish:
I want to send a method an object of any type, and get either the same object back, or a new one if the function succeeded. I then want to use the method itself as a boolean, so code within the if statement only runs if I get a new object back.
I realize that this is an odd way to do this, but there is method behind this nonsense (at least in my head).
You can't compare values against a lambda expression directly. What you can do is wrap the lambda in a Func and check the result:
if (new Func<string>(() => Class2.Foo(s, out s)).Invoke() == "some value")
{
// Do stuff
}
It isn't clear from your code exactly why you are using a lambda at all, though. If possible, you should instead just call the method:
if (Class2.Foo(s, out s) == "some value")
{
// Do stuff
}
Per the clarification in the comments, I think it would be better to do one of two things. Either A] have only one ref parameter and do the assignment in the method (assisted for cleanliness with generics):
class Class1
{
void Foo ()
{
s = "some value";
sa = "some other value";
if (Class2.Foo(ref s, sa))
{
// Do stuff here
}
}
}
public static class Class2
{
public static bool Foo<T>(ref T o, T alt) {
bool ok = // Do some function
if (ok)
o = alt;
return ok;
}
}
or B] just get the correct object back from the method:
class Class1
{
void Foo ()
{
sa = "some value";
sb = "some other value";
r = Class2.Foo(sa, sb);
if (r != sa)
{
// Do stuff here
}
}
}
public static class Class2
{
public static T Foo<T>(T a, T b)
{
bool ok = // Do some function
if (ok)
return a;
return b;
}
}
It's still not clear why you need a lambda, but if you do, you can simply wrap it in a Func (as per my above answer) or in a Predicate (as per Mrinal Kamboj's answer).
I'd like to assign a reference to a member field. But I obviously do not understand this part of C# very well, because I failed :-) So, here's my code:
public class End {
public string parameter;
public End(ref string parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter);
}
public void Init() {
this.parameter = "success";
}
}
class MainClass {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
string s = "failed";
End e = new End(ref s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}
Output is:
Inside: failed
After: failed
How do I get "success" on the console?
Thanks in advance,
dijxtra
As others have pointed out, you cannot store a reference to a variable in a field in C#, or indeed, any CLR language.
Of course you can capture a reference to a class instance that contains a variable easily enough:
sealed class MyRef<T>
{
public T Value { get; set; }
}
public class End
{
public MyRef<string> parameter;
public End(MyRef<string> parameter)
{
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter.Value);
}
public void Init()
{
this.parameter.Value = "success";
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main()
{
MyRef<string> s = new MyRef<string>();
s.Value = "failed";
End e = new End(s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s.Value);
}
}
Easy peasy.
There are really two issues here.
One, as the other posters have said, you can't strictly do what you're looking to do (as you may be able to with C and the like). However - the behavior and intent are still readily workable in C# - you just have to do it the C# way.
The other issue is your unfortunate attempt to try and use strings - which are, as one of the other posters mentioned - immutable - and by definition get copied around.
So, having said that, your code can easily be converted to this, which I think does do what you want:
public class End
{
public StringBuilder parameter;
public End(StringBuilder parameter)
{
this.parameter = parameter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", parameter);
}
public void Init()
{
this.parameter.Clear();
this.parameter.Append("success");
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder("failed");
End e = new End(s);
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}
It sounds like what you're trying to do here is make a field a reference to another storage location. Essentially having a ref field in the same way you have a ref parameter. This is not possible in C#.
One of the main issues with doing this is that in order to be verifiable the CLR (and C#) must be able to prove the object containing the field won't live longer than the location it points to. This is typically impossible as objects live on the heap and a ref can easily point into the stack. These two places have very different lifetime semantics (heap typically being longer than the stack) and hence a ref between can't be proven to be valid.
If you don't want to introduce another class like MyRef or StringBuilder because your string is already a property in an existing class you can use a Func and Action to achieve the result you are looking for.
public class End {
private readonly Func<string> getter;
private readonly Action<string> setter;
public End(Func<string> getter, Action<string> setter) {
this.getter = getter;
this.setter = setter;
this.Init();
Console.WriteLine("Inside: {0}", getter());
}
public void Init() {
setter("success");
}
}
class MainClass
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
string s = "failed";
End e = new End(() => s, (x) => {s = x; });
Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", s);
}
}
And if you want to simplify the calling side further (at the expense of some run-time) you can use a method like the one below to turn (some) getters into setters.
/// <summary>
/// Convert a lambda expression for a getter into a setter
/// </summary>
public static Action<T, U> GetSetter<T,U>(Expression<Func<T, U>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
var property = (PropertyInfo)memberExpression.Member;
var setMethod = property.GetSetMethod();
var parameterT = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "x");
var parameterU = Expression.Parameter(typeof(U), "y");
var newExpression =
Expression.Lambda<Action<T, U>>(
Expression.Call(parameterT, setMethod, parameterU),
parameterT,
parameterU
);
return newExpression.Compile();
}
At this line:
this.parameter = parameter;
...you copy the method parameter to the class member parameter. Then, in Init() you are assigning the value "success", again, to the class member parameter. In your Console.Writeline, then, you are writing the value of the method parameter, "failed", because you never actually modify the method parameter.
What you are trying to do - the way you are trying to do it - is not possible, I believe in C#. I wouldn't try passing a string with the ref modifier.
As answered by JaredPar, you can't.
But the problem is partly that string is immutable. Change your parameter to be of class Basket { public string status; } and your code would basically work. No need for the ref keyword, just change parameter.status.
And the other option is of course Console.WriteLine("After: {0}", e.parameter);. Do wrap parameter in a (write-only) property.
Is there a well-known way for simulating the variadic template feature in C#?
For instance, I'd like to write a method that takes a lambda with an arbitrary set of parameters. Here is in pseudo code what I'd like to have:
void MyMethod<T1,T2,...,TReturn>(Fun<T1,T2, ..., TReturn> f)
{
}
C# generics are not the same as C++ templates. C++ templates are expanded compiletime and can be used recursively with variadic template arguments. The C++ template expansion is actually Turing Complete, so there is no theoretically limit to what can be done in templates.
C# generics are compiled directly, with an empty "placeholder" for the type that will be used at runtime.
To accept a lambda taking any number of arguments you would either have to generate a lot of overloads (through a code generator) or accept a LambdaExpression.
There is no varadic support for generic type arguments (on either methods or types). You will have to add lots of overloads.
varadic support is only available for arrays, via params, i.e.
void Foo(string key, params int[] values) {...}
Improtantly - how would you even refer to those various T* to write a generic method? Perhaps your best option is to take a Type[] or similar (depending on the context).
I know this is an old question, but if all you want to do is something simple like print those types out, you can do this very easily without Tuple or anything extra using 'dynamic':
private static void PrintTypes(params dynamic[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
Console.WriteLine(arg.GetType());
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
PrintTypes(1,1.0,"hello");
Console.ReadKey();
}
Will print "System.Int32" , "System.Double", "System.String"
If you want to perform some action on these things, as far as I know you have two choices. One is to trust the programmer that these types can do a compatible action, for example if you wanted to make a method to Sum any number of parameters. You could write a method like the following saying how you want to receive the result and the only prerequisite I guess would be that the + operation works between these types:
private static void AddToFirst<T>(ref T first, params dynamic[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
first += arg;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int x = 0;
AddToFirst(ref x,1,1.5,2.0,3.5,2);
Console.WriteLine(x);
double y = 0;
AddToFirst(ref y, 1, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, 2);
Console.WriteLine(y);
Console.ReadKey();
}
With this, the output for the first line would be "9" because adding to an int, and the second line would be "10" because the .5s didn't get rounded, adding as a double. The problem with this code is if you pass some incompatible type in the list, it will have an error because the types can't get added together, and you won't see that error at compile time, only at runtime.
So, depending on your use case there might be another option which is why I said there were two choices at first. Assuming you know the choices for the possible types, you could make an interface or abstract class and make all of those types implement the interface. For example, the following. Sorry this is a bit crazy. And it can probably be simplfied.
public interface Applyable<T>
{
void Apply(T input);
T GetValue();
}
public abstract class Convertable<T>
{
public dynamic value { get; set; }
public Convertable(dynamic value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public abstract T GetConvertedValue();
}
public class IntableInt : Convertable<int>, Applyable<int>
{
public IntableInt(int value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
return value;
}
public void Apply(int input)
{
value += input;
}
public int GetValue()
{
return value;
}
}
public class IntableDouble : Convertable<int>
{
public IntableDouble(double value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
return (int) value;
}
}
public class IntableString : Convertable<int>
{
public IntableString(string value) : base(value) {}
public override int GetConvertedValue()
{
// If it can't be parsed return zero
int result;
return int.TryParse(value, out result) ? result : 0;
}
}
private static void ApplyToFirst<TResult>(ref Applyable<TResult> first, params Convertable<TResult>[] args)
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
first.Apply(arg.GetConvertedValue());
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Applyable<int> result = new IntableInt(0);
IntableInt myInt = new IntableInt(1);
IntableDouble myDouble1 = new IntableDouble(1.5);
IntableDouble myDouble2 = new IntableDouble(2.0);
IntableDouble myDouble3 = new IntableDouble(3.5);
IntableString myString = new IntableString("2");
ApplyToFirst(ref result, myInt, myDouble1, myDouble2, myDouble3, myString);
Console.WriteLine(result.GetValue());
Console.ReadKey();
}
Will output "9" the same as the original Int code, except the only values you can actually pass in as parameters are things that you actually have defined and you know will work and not cause any errors. Of course, you would have to make new classes i.e. DoubleableInt , DoubleableString, etc.. in order to re-create the 2nd result of 10. But this is just an example, so you wouldn't even be trying to add things at all depending on what code you are writing and you would just start out with the implementation that served you the best.
Hopefully someone can improve on what I wrote here or use it to see how this can be done in C#.
Another alternative besides those mentioned above is to use Tuple<,> and reflection, for example:
class PrintVariadic<T>
{
public T Value { get; set; }
public void Print()
{
InnerPrint(Value);
}
static void InnerPrint<Tn>(Tn t)
{
var type = t.GetType();
if (type.IsGenericType && type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(Tuple<,>))
{
var i1 = type.GetProperty("Item1").GetValue(t, new object[]{});
var i2 = type.GetProperty("Item2").GetValue(t, new object[]{ });
InnerPrint(i1);
InnerPrint(i2);
return;
}
Console.WriteLine(t.GetType());
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var v = new PrintVariadic<Tuple<
int, Tuple<
string, Tuple<
double,
long>>>>();
v.Value = Tuple.Create(
1, Tuple.Create(
"s", Tuple.Create(
4.0,
4L)));
v.Print();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
I don't necessarily know if there's a name for this pattern, but I arrived at the following formulation for a recursive generic interface that allows an unlimited amount of values to be passed in, with the returned type retaining type information for all passed values.
public interface ITraversalRoot<TRoot>
{
ITraversalSpecification<TRoot> Specify();
}
public interface ITraverser<TRoot, TCurrent>: ITraversalRoot<TRoot>
{
IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TInclude, TCurrent, ITraverser<TRoot, TCurrent>> AndInclude<TInclude>(Expression<Func<TCurrent, TInclude>> path);
}
public interface IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TDerived, TParent, out TParentTraverser> : ITraverser<TRoot, TParent>
{
IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TInclude, TDerived, IDerivedTraverser<TRoot, TDerived, TParent, TParentTraverser>> FromWhichInclude<TInclude>(Expression<Func<TDerived, TInclude>> path);
TParentTraverser ThenBackToParent();
}
There's no casting or "cheating" of the type system involved here: you can keep stacking on more values and the inferred return type keeps storing more and more information. Here is what the usage looks like:
var spec = Traversal
.StartFrom<VirtualMachine>() // ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>
.AndInclude(vm => vm.EnvironmentBrowser) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, EnvironmentBrowser, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>
.AndInclude(vm => vm.Datastore) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>
.FromWhichInclude(ds => ds.Browser) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, HostDatastoreBrowser, Datastore, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>>
.FromWhichInclude(br => br.Mountpoints) // IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Mountpoint, HostDatastoreBrowser, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, HostDatastoreBrowser, Datastore, IDerivedTraverser<VirtualMachine, Datastore, VirtualMachine, ITraverser<VirtualMachine, VirtualMachine>>>>
.Specify(); // ITraversalSpecification<VirtualMachine>
As you can see the type signature becomes basically unreadable near after a few chained calls, but this is fine so long as type inference works and suggests the right type to the user.
In my example I am dealing with Funcs arguments, but you could presumably adapt this code to deal with arguments of arbitrary type.
For a simulation you can say:
void MyMethod<TSource, TResult>(Func<TSource, TResult> f) where TSource : Tparams {
where Tparams to be a variadic arguments implementation class. However, the framework does not provide an out-of-box stuff to do that, Action, Func, Tuple, etc., are all have limited length of their signatures. The only thing I can think of is to apply the CRTP .. in a way I've not find somebody blogged. Here's my implementation:
*: Thank #SLaks for mentioning Tuple<T1, ..., T7, TRest> also works in a recursive way. I noticed it's recursive on the constructor and the factory method instead of its class definition; and do a runtime type checking of the last argument of type TRest is required to be a ITupleInternal; and this works a bit differently.
Code
using System;
namespace VariadicGenerics {
public interface INode {
INode Next {
get;
}
}
public interface INode<R>:INode {
R Value {
get; set;
}
}
public abstract class Tparams {
public static C<TValue> V<TValue>(TValue x) {
return new T<TValue>(x);
}
}
public class T<P>:C<P> {
public T(P x) : base(x) {
}
}
public abstract class C<R>:Tparams, INode<R> {
public class T<P>:C<T<P>>, INode<P> {
public T(C<R> node, P x) {
if(node is R) {
Next=(R)(node as object);
}
else {
Next=(node as INode<R>).Value;
}
Value=x;
}
public T() {
if(Extensions.TypeIs(typeof(R), typeof(C<>.T<>))) {
Next=(R)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(R));
}
}
public R Next {
private set;
get;
}
public P Value {
get; set;
}
INode INode.Next {
get {
return this.Next as INode;
}
}
}
public new T<TValue> V<TValue>(TValue x) {
return new T<TValue>(this, x);
}
public int GetLength() {
return m_expandedArguments.Length;
}
public C(R x) {
(this as INode<R>).Value=x;
}
C() {
}
static C() {
m_expandedArguments=Extensions.GetExpandedGenericArguments(typeof(R));
}
// demonstration of non-recursive traversal
public INode this[int index] {
get {
var count = m_expandedArguments.Length;
for(INode node = this; null!=node; node=node.Next) {
if(--count==index) {
return node;
}
}
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index");
}
}
R INode<R>.Value {
get; set;
}
INode INode.Next {
get {
return null;
}
}
static readonly Type[] m_expandedArguments;
}
}
Note the type parameter for the inherited class C<> in the declaration of
public class T<P>:C<T<P>>, INode<P> {
is T<P>, and the class T<P> is nested so that you can do some crazy things such as:
Test
[Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestClass]
public class TestClass {
void MyMethod<TSource, TResult>(Func<TSource, TResult> f) where TSource : Tparams {
T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.
T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>
crazy = Tparams
// trying to change any value to not match the
// declaring type makes the compilation fail
.V((byte)1).V('2').V(4u).V(8L)
.V((byte)1).V('2').V(8L).V(4u)
.V((byte)1).V(8L).V('2').V(4u)
.V(8L).V((byte)1).V('2').V(4u)
.V(8L).V((byte)1).V(4u).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(8L).V(4u).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(4u).V(8L).V('2')
.V((byte)1).V(4u).V('2').V(8L)
.V(4u).V((byte)1).V('2').V(8L)
.V(4u).V((byte)1).V(8L).V('2')
.V(4u).V(8L).V((byte)1).V('2')
.V(8L).V(4u).V((byte)1).V('2')
.V(8L).V(4u).V('9').V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V(8L).V('2').V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V('2').V(8L).V((byte)1)
.V(4u).V('2').V((byte)1).V(8L)
.V('2').V(4u).V((byte)1).V(8L)
.V('2').V(4u).V(8L).V((byte)1)
.V('2').V(8L).V(4u).V((byte)1)
.V(8L).V('2').V(4u).V((byte)1)
.V(8L).V('2').V((byte)1).V(4u)
.V('2').V(8L).V((byte)1).V(4u)
.V('2').V((byte)1).V(8L).V(4u)
.V('7').V((byte)1).V(4u).V(8L);
var args = crazy as TSource;
if(null!=args) {
f(args);
}
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod() {
Func<
T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.
T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<uint>.
T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<byte>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.T<long>.
T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<char>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<char>.
T<long>.T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<uint>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.T<long>.
T<char>.T<uint>.T<long>.T<byte>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<uint>.T<byte>.
T<long>.T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<long>.T<byte>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<long>.T<uint>.
T<char>.T<byte>.T<uint>.T<long>, String>
f = args => {
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("Length={0}", args.GetLength()));
// print fourth value from the last
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("value={0}", args.Next.Next.Next.Value));
args.Next.Next.Next.Value='x';
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("value={0}", args.Next.Next.Next.Value));
return "test";
};
MyMethod(f);
}
}
Another thing to note is we have two classes named T, the non-nested T:
public class T<P>:C<P> {
is just for the consistency of usage, and I made class C abstract to not directly being newed.
The Code part above needs to expand ther generic argument to calculate about their length, here are two extension methods it used:
Code(extensions)
using System.Diagnostics;
using System;
namespace VariadicGenerics {
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public static class Extensions {
public static readonly Type VariadicType = typeof(C<>.T<>);
public static bool TypeIs(this Type x, Type d) {
if(null==d) {
return false;
}
for(var c = x; null!=c; c=c.BaseType) {
var a = c.GetInterfaces();
for(var i = a.Length; i-->=0;) {
var t = i<0 ? c : a[i];
if(t==d||t.IsGenericType&&t.GetGenericTypeDefinition()==d) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
public static Type[] GetExpandedGenericArguments(this Type t) {
var expanded = new Type[] { };
for(var skip = 1; t.TypeIs(VariadicType) ? true : skip-->0;) {
var args = skip>0 ? t.GetGenericArguments() : new[] { t };
if(args.Length>0) {
var length = args.Length-skip;
var temp = new Type[length+expanded.Length];
Array.Copy(args, skip, temp, 0, length);
Array.Copy(expanded, 0, temp, length, expanded.Length);
expanded=temp;
t=args[0];
}
}
return expanded;
}
}
}
For this implementation, I choosed not to break the compile-time type checking, so we do not have a constructor or a factory with the signature like params object[] to provide values; instead, use a fluent pattern of method V for mass object instantiation to keep type can be statically type checked as much as possible.
i have a method that takes as a parameter an expression because I need the method string name, and I don't care about the parameters of that method, is it possible to do that ?
I don't think that there is. You can however make a generic helper method that you can put in place of the parameters:
public T Any<T>(){
return default(T);
}
and you can call it like so:
YourMethod((YourClass yc) => yc.SomeMethod(Any<SomeClass>(), Any<SomeOtherClass>());
Yes, it's possible. Here is a concept proof test.
private static T RunExpression<T>(Expression<Func<T>> run )
{
var callExpression = (MethodCallExpression) run.Body;
var procedureName = callExpression.Method.Name;
Trace.WriteLine(procedureName);
foreach (var argument in callExpression.Arguments)
{
Trace.WriteLine(argument);
}
Trace.WriteLine(callExpression.Arguments.Count);
// Some really wicked stuff to assign out parameter
// Just for demonstration purposes
var outMember = (MemberExpression)callExpression.Arguments[1];
var e = Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(outMember.Expression);
var o = e.Compile().Invoke();
var prop = o.GetType().GetField("s");
prop.SetValue(o, "Hello from magic method call!");
Trace.WriteLine(run.Body);
return default(T);
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestExpressionInvocation()
{
var action = new MyActionObject();
string s = null;
RunExpression(() => action.Create(1, out s));
Assert.AreEqual("Hello from magic method call!", s);
}
The easiest way to do this doesn't even use expression trees:
void Main()
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Action(Main)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Func<Delegate, string>(GetNameOfMethod)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Func<int, short, long>(AddNumber)));
Console.Out.WriteLine(GetNameOfMethod(new Action<int, short>(SwallowNumber)));
}
string GetNameOfMethod(Delegate d){
return d.Method.Name;
}
long AddNumber(int x, short y){ return x+y; }
void SwallowNumber(int x, short y){}
yields:
Main
GetNameOfMethod
AddNumber
SwallowNumber
I use this to build a BDD framework on http://storyq.codeplex.com.
Click here to see the file where I do this.
You can use this method without parameters but parentheses (even empty) are required, because without them you tell the compiler to access a property of that name.
You can use something like:
(credits go to klausbyskov)
But it's less verbose.
Also you will need to provide overloads for various argument lists.
[TestClass]
public class TestExpressions
{
public class MyClass
{
public bool MyMethod(string arg)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
private static string UseExpression<T, Ta1>(Expression<Action<T,Ta1>> run)
{
return ((MethodCallExpression)run.Body).Method.Name;
}
[TestMethod]
public void TestExpressionParser()
{
Assert.AreEqual("MyMethod",
UseExpression<MyClass,string>((c,fakeString) => c.MyMethod(fakeString)));
}
}
I am wondering if it is possible (and what the syntax would be) to send an object's method to a function.
Example:
Object "myObject" has two methods "method1" and "method2"
I would like to have a function along the lines of:
public bool myFunc(var methodOnObject)
{
[code here]
var returnVal = [run methodOnObject here]
[code here]
return returnVal;
}
So that in another function I could do something like
public void overallFunction()
{
var myObject = new ObjectItem();
var method1Success = myFunc(myObject.method1);
var method2Success = myFunc(myObject.method2);
}
Yes, you need to use a delegate. Delegates are fairly analogous to function pointers in C/C++.
You'll first need to declare the signature of the delegate. Say I have this function:
private int DoSomething(string data)
{
return -1;
}
The delegate declaration would be...
public delegate int MyDelegate(string data);
You could then declare myFunc in this way..
public bool myFunc(MyDelegate methodOnObject)
{
[code here]
int returnValue = methodOnObject("foo");
[code here]
return returnValue;
}
You can then call it in one of two ways:
myFunc(new MyDelegate(DoSomething));
Or, in C# 3.0 and later, you can use the shorthand of...
myFunc(DoSomething);
(It just wraps the provided function in the default constructor for that delegate automatically. The calls are functionally identical).
If you don't care to actually create a delegate or actual function implementation for simple expressions, the following will work in C# 3.0 as well:
public bool myFunc(Func<string, int> expr)
{
[code here]
int returnValue = methodOnObject("foo");
[code here]
return returnValue;
}
Which could then be called like so:
myFunc(s => return -1);
Is there really a need for explicit delegates? Maybe this approach would help you:
private class MyObject
{
public bool Method1() { return true; } // Your own logic here
public bool Method2() { return false; } // Your own logic here
}
private static bool MyFunction(Func<bool> methodOnObject)
{
bool returnValue = methodOnObject();
return returnValue;
}
private static void OverallFunction()
{
MyObject myObject = new MyObject();
bool method1Success = MyFunction(myObject.Method1);
bool method2Success = MyFunction(myObject.Method2);
}
Yes, using delegates ..
Here is an example..
delegate string myDel(int s);
public class Program
{
static string Func(myDel f)
{
return f(2);
}
public static void Main()
{
Test obj = new Test();
myDel d = obj.func;
Console.WriteLine(Func(d));
}
}
class Test
{
public string func(int s)
{
return s.ToString();
}
}