We Keep Coding

confused about return methods and voids in C#

Want feedback if i`m correct here?
Use void if you are not returning anything in a method,
otherwise
Name your data types used in the method criteria before method name.
use Return in the method before the calculation or output.
So something like this.
static int MyMethod(int x)
{
return 5 + x;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(MyMethod(3));
}
// Outputs 8 (5 + 3)
What if my method has ints and doubles?
Do I write as follows? (another words do I have to mention every type i`m using prior to the method name?
static int double myMethod (int x, double y)
Even with that I dont know when is a method void? It seems my methods all return values.
Isnt the following returning the values of the arguments? So why should I label it void?
static void MyMethod(string fname, int age)
{
Console.WriteLine(fname + " is " + age);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyMethod("Liam", 20);
MyMethod("Jenny", 25);
MyMethod("Tom", 31);
}
I can only think that a void means there is no new calculation being done in the actual method body, passing arguments into a method and spitting them out for user viewing does not mean its "returning a value", I dont know what i`m talking about.

Let's be completely clear about what these bullets mean.
Use void if you are not returning anything in a method, otherwise
In this context, "return" means that the method provides an output that can be assigned to a variable by the caller. For example
int Return10()
{
return 10;
}
...allows the caller to do this:
int x = Return10();
Console.WriteLine(x); //Outputs "10"
A method should "return" void when its results cannot be assigned. For example, if the results are printed on the screen.
void Print10()
{
Console.WriteLine("10"); //Prints 10 to the screen
}
...which allows the caller to do this:
Print10();
You cannot assign it because it doesn't return anything. This doesn't work:
int x = Print10(); //Compiler error
Name your data types used in the method criteria before method name.
A method can return exactly one value or object. So "types" here is wrong. You can only specify one type.
Use return in the method before the calculation or output.
This is a little misleading. The return keyword should be followed by an expression which can be assigned.
int Return10()
{
return 10 + 10; //Is okay because it's an expression and could be assigned
}
int Return10()
{
var x = 10 + 10;
return x; //This is also okay; in fact it does exactly the same thing as the previous example
}
int Return10()
{
return Console.WriteLine("10"); //Compiler error; can't be assigned to anything.
}
By the way, a method can also output something and return it:
int WriteAndReturn10()
{
int x = 10;
Console.WriteLine(x);
return x;
}

I am going to address the following
What if my method has ints and doubles? Do I write as follows?
(another words do I have to mention every type i`m using prior to the
method name?
There are no built in ways or syntax to return more than one type from a method as the return parameter.. This is basically historical and has been this way since dinosaurs roamed the earth.
However, there are lots of options that achieve the same result. For instance, you could use a custom struct, you could use out parameters, you could use a class, or a delegate parameter of some kind. However, a modern succinct approach might be to use a Value Tuple:
static (int someInt, double someDouble) myMethod (int x, double y)
{
return (x,y);
}
Fun Fact : even though this looks like you a returning more than one type, you are actually just invoking a special syntax that wraps your return parameters in a single type of struct
Usage
var result = myMethod(1,2.2);
Console.WriteLine(result.someInt);
Console.WriteLine(result.someDouble);
Or if you want to get fancy, you can use the newer deconstructed syntax
var (someInt, someDouble) = myMethod(1,2.2);
Console.WriteLine(someInt);
Console.WriteLine(someDouble);
Additional Resources
return (C# Reference)
Methods (C# Programming Guide)
Tuple types (C# reference)
out parameter modifier (C# Reference)
ref (C# Reference)
Using Delegates (C# Programming Guide)

Is there something like a Runnable in Unity?

I'm new to Unity and I don't know very much about it. However, I've played around with Java and Objective-C in the past; two object-oriented C-based programming languages that are very much like the C# Unity uses.
Objective-C has blocks that are variables that allow you to store a function inside of them and call them later. When used in practice, you can use blocks as function parameters and class properties, saving a programmer "if" statements and instead simply calling the block.
An example of that syntax would be (taken from the linked tutorial site):
// Declare a block variable
double (^distanceFromRateAndTime)(double rate, double time);
// Create and assign the block
distanceFromRateAndTime = ^double(double rate, double time) {
return rate * time;
};
// Call the block
double dx = distanceFromRateAndTime(35, 1.5);
NSLog(#"A car driving 35 mph will travel %.2f miles in 1.5 hours.", dx);
Java has the Runnable class, which is the basis of its multithreading structure. (Thread inherits from Runnable.) I learned about that class from a previous question I asked. There are two ways of making a Runnable: The Java 8 way of using lambdas...
Runnable r = () -> { System.out.println("This is just an example!"); }
The Java 8 using lambdas as a function parameter...
void someFunction(Runnable r) {
r.run();
}
// In a method, not sure about the semicolons
someFunction( () -> { System.out.println("This will work, too!"); });
And finally, pre-Java 8...
Runnable r = Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Yet another example");
}
}
My question is, how would I go about achieving this in Unity's variant of C#?

The Action delegate would be the equivalent, without multi-threading aspect. You can use an expression by specifying the parameter list, the '=>' symbol and then the resulting expression, which can also be a block. Func can be used instead if the return type is non-void.
Action a = () => Console.WriteLine("a");
Action b = x => Console.WriteLine(x);
Action c = (x, y, z) => {
Console.WriteLine(x);
Console.WriteLine(y);
Console.WriteLine(z);
}
Func<int, int, int> add = (x, y) => x + y; // last type is return-type
Many multithreading libraries will accept actions and funcs as parameters, including the core TPL, which includes method likes Task.Run and Task.ForEach. When operating os collections, the PLINQ extension (Parallel Linq) is a great tool that chains funcs together.

It is called Action in C#, and you use the lambda operator => :
Action action = () => Console.WriteLine("This is just an example!");
You can also pass it around :
// single line statement doesn't need to be wrapped in a {code block}, and you don't need the `;` at the end
SomeFunction(() => Console.WriteLine("This will work, too!"));
SomeFunction(() =>
{
//multiline statements
Console.WriteLine("This will work, too!");
Console.WriteLine("This will work, too!x2");
Console.WriteLine("This will work, too!x3");
});
void SomeFunction(Action action)
{
action();
}

Inline use of function returning more than one value in C#

I am used to using functions that return a single value "in-line" like so:
Label1.Text = firstString + functionReturnSecondString(aGivenParameter);
Can this be done for a function that returns two values?
Hypothetical example:
label1.Text = multipleReturnFunction(parameter).firstValue
I have been looking into returning more than one value and it looks like the best options are using a tuple, struct, or an array list.
I made a working function that retuns a struct. However the way I got it to work I need to first call the function, then I can use the values. It doesn't seem possible to make it happen all on the same line without writing another function.
multipleReturnFunction(parameter);
Label1.Text = firstString + classOfStruct.secondString;
I haven't made a function that returns a tuple or array list yet, so I'm not sure. Is it possible to call those functions and reference the return values "inline"?
I appreciate your feedback.

I have a grotty hack for exactly this type of scenario - when you want to perform multiple operations on the return value without defining an extra variable to store it:
public static TResult Apply<TInput, TResult>(this TInput input, Func<TInput, TResult> transformation)
{
return transformation(input);
}
... and here's the reason it came about in the first place:
var collection = Enumerable.Range(1, 3);
// Average reimplemented with Aggregate.
double average = collection
.Aggregate(
new { Count = 0, Sum = 0 },
(acc, i) => new { Count = acc.Count + 1, Sum = acc.Sum + i })
.Apply(a => (double)a.Sum / (double)a.Count); // Note: we have access to both Sum and Count despite never having stored the result of the call to .Aggregate().
Console.WriteLine("Average: {0}", average);
Needless to say this is better suited for academic exercises than actual production code.

Alternatively, use the ref or they out keyword.
Example:
int a = 0, b = 0;
void DoSomething(ref int a, ref int b) {
a = 1;
b = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine(a); // Prints 1
Console.WriteLine(b); // Prints 2
It's not inline and I personally would consider a class or a struct before using the ref or the out keyword. Let's consider the theory: when you want to return multiple things, you have in fact an object that has multiple properties which you want to make available to the caller of your function.
Therefore it is much more correct to actually create an object (either by using a class or a struct) that represents what you want to make available and returning that.
The only time I use the ref or the out keyword is when using DLL imports because those functions often have pointers as their calling arguments and I personally don't see any benefit in using them in your typical normal application.

To do this inline, I think you would have to have another method that takes your struct and gives you the string you are looking for.
public string NewMethod(object yourStruct)
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", yourStruct.value1, yourStruct.value2);
}
Then in the page, you do this:
Label1.Text = NewMethod(multipleReturnFunction(parameter));

C# doesn't have Inline functions, but it does support anonymous functions which can be closures.
With these techniques, you can say:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
}))("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="123"+arg;
secondString="456";
}))("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
or name the delegate and reuse it:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
Action<String> m=
arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
};
m("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
m("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
So, do you really need a method returns multiple values?

Each method can return only one value. Thats how methods defined in .NET
Methods are declared in a class or struct by specifying the access
level such as public or private, optional modifiers such as abstract
or sealed, the return value, the name of the method, and any method
parameters
If you need to return more than one value from method, then you have three options:
Return complex type which will hold all values. That cannot help you in this case, because you will need local variable to store value returned by method.
Use out parameters. Also not your case - you will need to declare parameters before method call.
Create another method, which does all work and returns single value.
Third option looks like
Label1.Text = AnotherMethod(parameters);
And implementation
public string AnotherMethod(parameters)
{
// use option 1 or 2 to get both values
// return combined string which uses both values and parameters
}
BTW One more option - do not return values at all - you can use method which sets several class fields.

Closures and java anonymous inner classes

Would anyone be so kind to post the equivalent Java code for a closure like this one (obtained using C#) with anonymous inner classes?
public static Func<int, int> IncrementByN()
{
int n = 0; // n is local to the method
Func<int, int> increment = delegate(int x)
{
n++;
return x + n;
};
return increment;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var v = IncrementByN();
Console.WriteLine(v(5)); // output 6
Console.WriteLine(v(6)); // output 8
}
Furthermore, can anyone explain how partial applications can be obtained if lexical closures are available and viceversa? For this second question, C# would be appreciated but it's your choice.
Thanks so much.

There is no closure yet in Java. Lambda expressions are coming in java 8. However, the only issue with what you're trying to translate is that it has state, which not something that lamba expressions will support i don't think. Keep in mind, it's really just a shorthand so that you can easily implement single method interfaces. You can however still simulate this I believe:
final AtomicInteger n = new AtomicInteger(0);
IncrementByN v = (int x) -> x + n.incrementAndGet();
System.out.println(v.increment(5));
System.out.println(v.increment(6));
I have not tested this code though, it's just meant as an example of what might possibly work in java 8.
Think of the collections api. Let's say they have this interface:
public interface CollectionMapper<S,T> {
public T map(S source);
}
And a method on java.util.Collection:
public interface Collection<K> {
public <T> Collection<T> map(CollectionMapper<K,T> mapper);
}
Now, let's see that without closures:
Collection<Long> mapped = coll.map(new CollectionMapper<Foo,Long>() {
public Long map(Foo foo) {
return foo.getLong();
}
}
Why not just write this:
Collection<Long> mapped = ...;
for (Foo foo : coll) {
mapped.add(foo.getLong());
}
Much more concise right?
Now introduce lambdas:
Collection<Long> mapped = coll.map( (Foo foo) -> foo.getLong() );
See how much nicer the syntax is? And you can chain it too (we'll assume there's an interface to do filtering which which returns boolean values to determine whether to filter out a value or not):
Collection<Long> mappedAndFiltered =
coll.map( (Foo foo) -> foo.getLong() )
.filter( (Long val) -> val.longValue() < 1000L );

This code is equivalent I believe (at least it produces the desired output):
public class Test {
static interface IncrementByN {
int increment(int x);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
IncrementByN v = new IncrementByN() { //anonymous class
int n = 0;
#Override
public int increment(int x) {
n++;
return x + n;
}
};
System.out.println(v.increment(5)); // output 6
System.out.println(v.increment(6)); // output 8
}
}

Assuming we have a generic function interface:
public interface Func<A, B> {
B call A();
}
Then we can write it like this:
public class IncrementByN {
public static Func<Integer, Integer> IncrementByN()
{
final int n_outer = 0; // n is local to the method
Func<Integer, Integer> increment = new Func<Integer, Integer>() {
int n = n_outer; // capture it into a non-final instance variable
// we can really just write int n = 0; here
public Integer call(Integer x) {
n++;
return x + n;
}
};
return increment;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Func<Integer, Integer> v = IncrementByN();
System.out.println(v.call(5)); // output 6
System.out.println(v.call(6)); // output 8
}
}
Some notes:
In your program, you capture the variable n by reference from the enclosing scope, and can modify that variable from the closure. In Java, you can only capture final variables (thus capture is only by value).
What I did here is capture the final variable from the outside, and then assign it into a non-final instance variable inside the anonymous class. This allows "passing info" into the closure and at the same time having it be assignable inside the closure. However, this information flow only works "one way" -- changes to n inside the closure is not reflected in the enclosing scope. This is appropriate for this example because that local variable in the method is not used again after being captured by the closure.
If, instead, you want to be able to pass information "both ways", i.e. have the closure also be able to change things in the enclosing scope, and vice versa, you will need to instead capture a mutable data structure, like an array, and then make changes to elements inside that. That is uglier, and is rarer to need to do.

Action/Func vs Methods, what's the point?

I know how to use Action and Func in .NET, but every single time I start to, the exact same solution can be achieved with a regular old Method that I call instead.
This excludes when an Action or Func is used as an argument for something I don't control, like LINQ's .Where.
So basically my question is...why do these exist? What do they give me extra and new that a simple Method doesn't?

I think other answers here talk about what an Action/Func is and its use. I will try to answer how to choose between Action/Func and method. The differences first:
1) From a raw performance point of view, delegates are slower compared to direct method calls, but it's so insignificant that worrying about it is a bad practice.
2) Methods can have overloads (same function names with different signatures) but not Action/Func delegates since they are declared as variables and by C# rules you cant have two variables with the same name in a given scope.
bool IsIt() { return 1 > 2; }
bool IsIt(int i) { return i > 2; } //legal
Func<bool> IsIt = () => 1 > 2;
Func<int, bool> IsIt = i => i > 2; //illegal, duplicate variable naming
3) Consequently, Action/Func are reassignable and can point to any function, while methods once compiled remain to be the same forever. It is semantically wrong to use Func/Action if the method it points to never changes during run time.
bool IsIt() { return 1 > 2; } //always returns false
Func<bool> IsIt = () => 1 > 2;
IsIt = () => 2 > 1; //output of IsIt depends on the function it points to.
4) You can specify ref/out parameters for normal methods. For eg, you can have
bool IsIt(out string p1, ref int p2) { return 1 > 2; } //legal
Func<out string, ref int, bool> IsIt; //illegal
5) You cannot introduce new generic type parameter for Action/Func (they are generic already btw, but the type arguments can only be a known type or types specified in the parent method or class), unlike methods.
bool IsIt<A, R>() { return 1 > 2; } //legal
Func<bool> IsIt<A, R> = () => 1 > 2; //illegal
6) Methods can have optional parameters, not Action/Func.
bool IsIt(string p1 = "xyz") { return 1 > 2; } //legal
Func<string, bool> IsIt = (p1 = "xyz") => 1 > 2; //illegal
7) You can have params keyword for parameters of a method, not so with Action/Func.
bool IsIt(params string[] p1) { return 1 > 2; } //legal
Func<params string[], bool> IsIt = p1 => 1 > 2; //illegal
8) Intellisense plays well with parameter names of methods (and accordingly you have cool XML documentation available for methods), not so with Action/Func. So as far as readability is concerned, regular methods win.
9) Action/Func have a parameter limit of 16 (not that you can't define your own ones with more) but methods support more than you will ever need.
As to when to use which, I would consider the following:
When you are forced to use one based on any of the above points, then you anyway have no other choice. Point 3 is the most compelling I find upon which you will have to base your decision.
In most normal cases, a regular method is the way to go. It's the standard way of refactoring a set of common functionality in C# and VB.NET world.
As a rule of thumb, if the function is more than a line, I prefer a method.
If the function has no relevance outside a specific method and the function is too trivial, like a simple selector (Func<S, T>) or a predicate (Func<bool>) I would prefer Action/Func. For eg,
public static string GetTimeStamp()
{
Func<DateTime, string> f = dt => humanReadable
? dt.ToShortTimeString()
: dt.ToLongTimeString();
return f(DateTime.Now);
}
There could be situations where Action/Func makes more sense. For instance if you have to build a heavy expression and compile a delegate, its worth doing it only once and caching the compiled delegate.
public static class Cache<T>
{
public static readonly Func<T> Get = GetImpl();
static Func<T> GetImpl()
{
//some expensive operation here, and return a compiled delegate
}
}
instead of
public static class Cache<T>
{
public static T Get()
{
//build expression, compile delegate and invoke the delegate
}
}
In the first case when you call Get, GetImpl is executed only once, where as in the second case, (expensive) Get will be called every time.
Not to forget anonymous method itself will have certain limits unrelated to Func/Action, making the use little different. Also see this for a related question.

Action and Func are framework-provided Delegate types. Delegates allow functions to be treated like variables, meaning that you can (among other things) pass them from method to method. If you have ever programmed in C++, you can think of Delegates as function pointers that are restricted by the signature of the method they refer to.
Action and Func specifically are generic delegates (meaning they take type parameters) with some of the most common signatures- almost any method in most programs can be represented using one or the other of those two, saving people a lot of time manually defining delegates like we did in .net prior to version 2. In fact, when I see code like this in a project, I can usually safely assume that the project was migrated from .net 1.1:
// This defines a delegate (a type that represents a function)
// but usages could easily be replaced with System.Action<String>
delegate void SomeApplicationSpecificName(String someArgument);
I'd recommend that you look into delegates some more. They are a hugely powerful feature of the C# language.

I use them to create an array of functions. For instance, I may have a ComboBox full of actions that could be taken. I populate the ComboBox with items of a class or structure:
public class ComboBoxAction
{
private string text;
private Action method;
public ComboBoxAction(string text, Action method)
{
this.text = text;
this.method = method;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return this.text;
}
public void Go()
{
this.method();
}
}
Then when someone selects an item, I can call the action.
CType(ComboBox1.SelectedItem, ComboBoxAction).Go()
This is far easier than having a Select statement determine which method to call based on the ComboBox's text.

There's plenty of cases where a Func can help where a Method wouldn't.
public void DoThing(MyClass foo, Func<MyClass, string> func)
{
foo.DoSomething;
var result = func(foo);
foo.DoStringThing(result);
}
So you can specify a different Func whenever you call this method - the DoThing method doesn't need to know what's being done, just that whatever it is will return a string.
You can do this without using the Func keyword by using the delegate keyword instead; it works much the same way.

One great use of action and func are when we need to perform some operation (before or after a method), irrespective of what the method is. For example, we need to retry the method 10 times if exception occurs.
Consider the following method – its return type is generic. So it can be applied on func with any return type.
public static T ExecuteMultipleAttempts<T>(Func<T> inputMethod, Action additionalTask, int wait, int numOfTimes)
{
var funcResult = default(T);
int counter = 0;
while (counter < numOfTimes)
{
try
{
counter++;
funcResult = inputMethod();
//If no exception so far, the next line will break the loop.
break;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (counter >= numOfTimes)
{
//If already exceeded the number of attemps, throw exception
throw;
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(wait);
}
if (additionalTask != null)
{
additionalTask();
}
}
}
return funcResult;
}