We Keep Coding

C# generic inheritance, base class casting

I wanted to make the following inheritance with included generics, but the final cast
a as A<XBase> always results in null, because the cast is not valid. Could anybody elaborate on why this cast would be invalid, as well as maybe a solution to this problem.
public class XBase {}
public interface A<T> where T : XBase
{
//Edited
void Method(T param);
}
public class Implementor : A<Implementor.ImplementorX >
{
public class ImplementorX : XBase {public int a;}
//Edited
void Method(ImplementorX param) {}
}
public class HelloWorld
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new Implementor();
var castRes = a as A<XBase>;
Console.WriteLine(castRes != null);
}
}
see live example https://rextester.com/BTNVT61833
EDITED: Added a method to interface A<T> bc else it could be solved with #DavidG's response

If you make an explicit cast:
var castRes = A<XBase>(a);
then you will see the following error:
Unable to cast object of type '' to type '`
Why? In my view, it is better to understand using real world example. I've renamed classes based on this explanation. There are comments which maps explanations to your classes in question.
Abstractions:
// XBase
public class Animal { }
// class ImplementorX : XBase {public int a;}
public class Bird : Animal
{
public string WingColor { get; set; }
}
// interface A<T> where T : XBase
public interface IHat<T> where T : Animal
{
void Hide(T param);
T Pull();
}
Concrete implementations:
// class Implementor : A<Implementor.ImplementorX >
public class Peacock : IHat<Bird>
{
// void Method(ImplementorX param) {}
void IHat<Bird>.Hide(Bird param)
{ }
public Bird Pull()
{ }
}
and how it can be called:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Peacock peacockHat = new Peacock();
IHat<Animal> animalHat = (IHat<Animal>) peacockHat; // runtime error 'Unable to cast
// object of type 'HelloWorld.Peacock' to type 'HelloWorld.IHat`1
// because
animalHat.Hide(new Dolphin()); // Hide a dolphin in a peacock hat?
}
So we cannot hide hat of Peacock from Dolphin. It is not okay. CLR prevents us from making inappropriate actions.
In short:
In short, imagine you have two animals such as Wolf and Sheep. And these classes implements IAnimal interface:
public interface IAnimal
{ }
public class Wolf: IAnimal
{ }
public class Sheep : IAnimal
{ }
So Sheep, Wolf classes implement the inherited interface IAnimal:
IAnimal
/ \
/ \
Sheep Wolf
And then these animals can be put in cage:
public class Cage<T> where T : IAnimal
{
public void Put(T animal)
{ }
}
Then you create a cage for Sheep. After that somebody wants to cast Sheep cage to IAnimal:
Cage<Sheep> sheepCage = new Cage<Sheep>();
sheepCage.Put(new Sheep());
Cage<IAnimal> animalCage = (Cage<Wolf>)sheepCage; // compile error
// if there were no error, then you will be able to do:
animalCage.Put(new Wolf()); // it is not good idea

How can I have a class pass its own type in the generics of a parameter name?

I have got two abstract classes: Particle and ParticleHub<T> where T : Particle.
I want, when I inherit Particle, for its constructor to require a ParticleHub of its respective type to be passed as a parameter. I want its constructor to be like this:
ParticleHub</*type of the inheriting class*/> _particleHub;
public Particle(ParticleHub</*type of the inheriting class*/> particleHub, OtherParameters otherParameters)
{
_particleHub = particleHub;
//use other parameters
}
If I write ParticleHub<typeof(this)> I get overloaded with errors that make me think I broke the syntax for the rest of the file. If I do ParticleHub<this.GetType()> I get the same problem, but only with fewer errors. Though with that one, I can understand that I can't use a function in a parameter type like that.
So how do I go about this?

Simple example below of an interface and generic pattern
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
IChair chair = new Chesterfield<Arm>(new Arm());
chair.Sit();
Console.Write(chair.HasSat());
}
}
public interface IChair
{
void Sit();
bool HasSat();
}
public interface IPart
{
}
public class Chesterfield<TPart> : Chair<TPart> where TPart : IPart
{
public Chesterfield(TPart part) => _part = part;
private bool _hasSat;
private readonly TPart _part;
public override void Sit()
{
_hasSat = true;
}
public override bool HasSat() => _hasSat;
}
public abstract class Chair<TPart> : IChair where TPart : IPart
{
public abstract void Sit();
public abstract bool HasSat();
}
public class Arm : IPart
{
}
public class Back : IPart
{
}
public class Leg
{
}

You have no other choise i think but to pass the type as other generic. See the exaple how it is done in terms of fluent builders as I think it is very close what You want to have: Link.
Like:
FePatricle<T, U> where T: Particle, U: FeParticle<T, U>
Looks crazy but it should do the trick in the constructor:
public FeParticle(ParticleHub<U>...
EDIT:
Or more likely as far as I understand:
FePatricle<T>: Particle where T: FeParticle<T>
So FePartivle extends Particle and it carries with itself its own type T?

Passing the inherited class itself, as below.
public abstract class Particle
{
}
public abstract class ParticleHub<T> where T : Particle
{
}
public class k1 : Particle
{
ParticleHub<k1> _particleHub = null;
public k1(ParticleHub<k1> ph)
{
_particleHub = ph;
}
}

Declaring Method with generic type

I was using generic types in C# and I am new to using generic types. So, right now I am stuck with a problem. I have some classes like these:
public class MyModel1
{
}
public class MyModel2
{
}
public class BaseClass<T>
{
}
public class ChildClass1 : BaseClass<MyModel1>
{
}
public class ChildClass2 : BaseClass<MyModel2>
{
}
public class AnotherClass
{
//What will be the syntax of declaring this method
//The syntax of the following method is wrong and incomplete.
//It's there just to give an idea about whai i want to do.
public void MyMethod<T>()
where T : BaseClass<..what to write..>
{
}
}
My question is what will be the correct syntax of declaring MyMethod if I want to call MyMethod like this:
MyMethod<ChildClass1>();

If I understood correctly, you try to filter "MyMethod" so that T is a class of type "ChildClass ...".
You can add a generic parameter to your function like this:
public void MyMethod<T, U>()
where T : BaseClass<U>
{
}
But then you have to call MyMethod in that way.
MyMethod<ChildClass1, MyModel1>();
So it's quite complicated to use.
Another solution is to create a new "blank" class :
public abstract class Base // mark it as abstract if you don't need to use it in your code
{
}
public class MyModel1
{
}
public class MyModel2
{
}
public class BaseClass<T> : Base //The class inherits the new class
{
}
public class ChildClass1 : BaseClass<MyModel1>
{
}
public class ChildClass2 : BaseClass<MyModel2>
{
}
public class AnotherClass
{
public void MyMethod<T>()
where T : Base
{
}
}

You've forgotten to mention the return type and adding <T> after the class name. For example, if the return type is void, you could declare the method as:
public void MyMethod<T>()
where T : BaseClass<T>
{
}

This will work (by which I mean it compiles)
public void MyMethod<T>()
where T : BaseClass<MyModel1>
{ }
so does this:
public void MyMethod<T>()
where T : ChildClass1
{ }
Further edit after reading your comment...
You can do this:
public class AnotherClass<TBaseClass, TModel> where TBaseClass : BaseClass<TModel>
{
public void MyMethod(TBaseClass input)
{ }
}
I have a term for this, hopefully non-offensive. I call it The Generic Rabbit Hole of Madness. It's what happens when we try to combine generics and inheritance so that one set of classes can accomplish a broad set of goals that become increasingly confusing, and we solve it by adding more generic parameters and more generic classes.
You reach the bottom of the hole if you
- use <dynamic>
- check to see what the actual type is using GetType(), typeof, or is
- get it to compile but can't remember what it's supposed to do

Generic Constructors and Inheritance

I have a generic class with a class constraint on it.
public class MyContainer<T> where T : MyBaseRow
MyBaseRow is an abstract class which I also want to contain a member of some flavour of MyContainer.
public abstract class MyBaseRow
{
public MyContainer<MyBaseRow> ParentContainer;
public MyBaseRow(MyContainer<MyBaseRow> parentContainer)
{
ParentContainer = parentContainer;
}
}
I am having problems with the constructors of classes inherited from MyBaseRow eg.
public class MyInheritedRowA : MyBaseRow
{
public MyInheritedRowA(MyContainer<MyInheritedRowA> parentContainer)
: base(parentContainer)
{ }
}
Won't allow MyInheritedRowA in the constructor, the compiler only expects and only allows MyBaseRow. I thought the generic class constraint allowed for inheritance? What am I doing wrong here and is there any way I can redesign these classes to get around this?
Many thanks in advance for any responses.

Basically, you can't use generics that way, because the covariance system doesn't work that way with classes. See here: http://geekswithblogs.net/abhijeetp/archive/2010/01/10/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-4.0.aspx
You can however use an interface like this:
public interface MyContainer<out T> where T : MyBaseRow {
}
And that code will compile.

You can make a covariant generic interface (C#4.0):
public interface IContainer<out T> where T : MyBaseRow
{
}
public class MyContainer<T> : IContainer<T> where T : MyBaseRow
{
}
public abstract class MyBaseRow
{
public IContainer<MyBaseRow> ParentContainer;
public MyBaseRow(IContainer<MyBaseRow> parentContainer)
{
ParentContainer = parentContainer;
}
}
public class MyInheritedRowA : MyBaseRow
{
public MyInheritedRowA(IContainer<MyInheritedRowA> parentContainer)
: base(parentContainer)
{ }
}

Overriding a method returning a generic class

in my Silverlight 4 application I started creating and using some generics and now I stumbled upon the following problem:
In a non-generic class, I have a abstract method, that returns a generic class:
public abstract class DTO_Base()
{
public abstract ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> CreateBusinessObject();
}
The generic class is defined in the following way:
public abstract class ServiceModelBase<RootNodeType> where RootNodeType : ServiceNodeBase
Naturally, from DTO_Base derived classes will have to override the CreateBusinessObject method:
public class DTO_Editor : DTO_Base
{
public override ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> CreateBusinessObject()
{
// the object to return have to be of type ServiceModelEditor
// which is derived from ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeEditor>
// public class ServiceModelEditor : ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeEditor>
// ServiceNodeEditor is derived from ServiceNodeBase
// public class ServiceNodeEditor : ServiceNodeBase
ServiceModelEditor target = new ServiceModelEditor()
...
Functions to populate the 'target'
...
return target;
}
}
The line return target; causes an error, stating that it isn't possible to implicitly convert the type ServiceModelEditor in ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase>. Also, an explicit conversion via target as ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> doesn't work.
How would I have to implement this method to work?

Try this:
public interface IDTO<Node> where Node : ServiceNodeBase
{
ServiceModelBase<Node> CreateBusinessObject();
}
public abstract class DTO_Base<Model,Node> : IDTO<Node>
where Model : ServiceModelBase<Node>
where Node : ServiceNodeBase
{
public abstract Model CreateBusinessObject();
#region IDTO<Node> Members
ServiceModelBase<Node> IDTO<Node>.CreateBusinessObject()
{
return CreateBusinessObject();
}
#endregion
}
public class DTO_Editor : DTO_Base<ServiceModelEditor, ServiceNodeEditor>
{
public override ServiceModelEditor CreateBusinessObject()
{
// the object to return have to be of type ServiceModelEditor
// which is derived from ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeEditor>
// public class ServiceModelEditor : ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeEditor>
// ServiceNodeEditor is derived from ServiceNodeBase
// public class ServiceNodeEditor : ServiceNodeBase
ServiceModelEditor target = new ServiceModelEditor();
return target;
}
}
I have faced a similar problem before and the only thing reasonable to do is to make the core base class generic also. You can remove the Model generic parameter (and the interface) and it will look a little less scary, but you loose visibility on the functionality of ServiceModelEditor outside of the method.

As it is, you've got to return a ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase>. One option is to make your base class generic:
public abstract class DtoBase<T> where T : RootNodeType
{
public abstract ServiceModelBase<T> CreateBusinessObject();
}
Then:
public class DtoEditor : DtoBase<ServiceNodeBase>
{
public override ServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> CreateBusinessObject()
{
...
}
}

If you are using .Net 4.0 I suggest you use interfaces to define your ServiceModelBase and specify an out variance modifier on that interface generic type:
class ServiceNodeBase { }
class ServiceNodeEditor : ServiceNodeBase {/*implementation*/}
//
interface IServiceModelBase<out RootNodeType>
where RootNodeType : ServiceNodeBase {
}
class ServiceModelEditor : IServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeEditor> {
/*implementation*/
}
//
abstract class DTO_Base {
public abstract IServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> CreateBusinessObject();
}
class DTO_Editor : DTO_Base {
public override IServiceModelBase<ServiceNodeBase> CreateBusinessObject() {
return new ServiceModelEditor();
}
}