Let's presume i have two enums:
public enum eFruits : int
{
Apple = 1,
Pear = 2,
Banana = 3
}
public enum eAnimals : int
{
Dog = 1,
Cat = 2,
Rabbit = 3
}
I would like to use these in dropdownlists/checklists etc; basically as listitems. The current code i have as a tryout is this;
public static class EnumHelper
{
public static IEnumerable<(int eCode, eFruits eType)> GetFruitTypesAsListItems()
{
var enums = new List<(int eCode, eFruits eType)>();
foreach (var item in (eFruits[])Enum.GetValues(typeof(eFruits)))
{
enums.Add(((int)item, item));
}
return enums;
}
}
Two issues with this;
1) I would like to have this in a generic way
2) It doesn't look nice inside a list/dropdown etc. so I'd like to use a ToString override.
Therefore I thought of something like this:
public class EnumListItem : Tuple<int, T>
{
public EnumListItem(int eCode, T eType)
: base(eCode, eType)
{ }
public override string ToString() => $"{base.Item2.ToString()} ({base.Item1})";
}
So in effect;
1) I would like to use a Generic with a Tuple
2) Would like to use a Generic to be able to generate list items based on that Tuple
Is this possible? I'm not sure how the declaration of this would look like. At this point I can't get it to work. Can someone point me in the right direction?
You can try below generic method.
public static class EnumHelper<T>
{
public static IEnumerable<(int eCode, T eType)> GetListItem()
{
var enums = new List<(int eCode, T eType)>();
foreach (var item in (T[])Enum.GetValues(typeof(T)))
{
enums.Add((Convert.ToInt32(item), item));
}
return enums;
}
}
And you can call it like,
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var animals = EnumHelper<eAnimals>.GetListItem();
var fruits = EnumHelper<eFruits>.GetListItem();
}
Output:
It is quite simple to make it a generic function. And you could use yield to return a generator enumerable instead of a buffered List to get rid of unnecessary use of memory.
public static IEnumerable<(int, TEnum)> GetValues<TEnum>()
where TEnum : struct, Enum
{
foreach (var item in Enum.GetValues(typeof(TEnum)))
{
yield return ((int)item, (TEnum)item);
}
}
I need some store where I can register some callback for automatically update.
class Store
{
readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<dynamic>> _callbacks = new Dictionary<Type, Action<dynamic>>();
public void Register<T>(Action<T> updateCallback)
{
_callbacks.Add(typeof(T), value => updateCallback(value));
}
public void Save<T>(T value)
{
_callbacks[typeof(T)](value);
}
}
class Program
{
private static string _stringField = "0";
private static int _intField = 0;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var store = new Store();
store.Register<string>(value => _stringField = value);
store.Register<int>(value => _intField = value);
Console.WriteLine($"{_stringField}/{_intField}");
store.Save("5");
Console.WriteLine($"{_stringField}/{_intField}");
store.Save(7);
Console.WriteLine($"{_stringField}/{_intField}");
}
}
Output:
0/0 5/0 5/7
It works fine. I just don't like Action<dynamic> in Dictionary. Firstly it looks as a hack. Secondary it produces box operation in Save method, because of dynamic. I understand that I can't use only generics because I'm not in static context but I'm looking for a best solution for this sample. Please advise some code without changing of Program class. So I need to register something one time and it will be updated automatically each time of Save method call.
If you don't like dynamic, you can store your callbacks as Action<object>, like this:
class Store {
readonly Dictionary<Type, Action<object>> _callbacks = new Dictionary<Type, Action<object>>();
public void Register<T>(Action<T> updateCallback) {
// cast here
_callbacks.Add(typeof(T), value => updateCallback((T) value));
}
public void Save<T>(T value) {
_callbacks[typeof(T)](value);
}
}
Use Delegate, so Dictionary<Type, Delegate> is good enough
Delegate d = _callbacks[typeof(T)];
Action<T> action = (Action < T >)d;
Storing
delegates in collections is normal practice (not a hack)
Boxing to object is imperfect practice
I have a series of static classes that I use to get strings for enum values. They all look something like this:
public static class MyEnumToString
{
private static Dictionary<MyEnum, string> map
= new Dictionary<MyEnum, string>();
public static string Get(MyEnum type)
{
PopulateEmptyMap();
return map[type];
}
static void PopulateEmptyMap()
{
if (!map.Any())
{
PopulateMap();
}
}
private static void PopulateMap()
{
map[MyEnum.enum1] = "string for enum 1";
map[MyEnum.enum2] = "string for enum 2";
}
}
I have multiple classes like this, that differ in the Enum type they use, and the string values. Clearly, I should combine the classes to reduce duplicated code.
What I tried doing was create generic base class so that it can handle any type, then implement the PopulateMap for the inherited classes. If it were possible, it would look something like this:
public static class TypeToString<TType>
{
public static Dictionary<TType, string> map
= new Dictionary<TType, string>();
public static string Get(TType type)
{
PopulateEmptyMap();
return map[type];
}
static void PopulateEmptyMap()
{
if (!map.Any())
{
PopulateMap();
}
}
public abstract static void PopulateMap();
}
public static class MyEnumToString: TypeToString<MyEnum>
{
public static void PopulateMap()
{
map[MyEnum.enum1] = "string for enum 1";
map[MyEnum.enum2] = "string for enum 2";
}
}
I had to make the Dictionary and the method PopulateMap public, because apparently generic classes cannot have protected or protected-internal members. Having to make that public isn't ideal, but not a deal-breaker.
What I am getting hung up on is the fact that "overridable methods cannot be static", so my PopulateMap method cannot be both abstract and static. And if it's not static, it can't be called from other static methods. And if it's not abstract, then the inheriting classes' PopulateMap doesn't get called.
This version doesn't even build.
Is there any way to do what I'm trying to do and still keep my class static? I'd really like to avoid having to have an instantiated TypeToString object every time I want to call TypeToString.Get().
Here's a handy extension method, as I'm guessing you're trying to map some description text to an enum value:
public static class EnumExtensions
{
public static string GetDescription(this Enum value)
{
var field = value.GetType().GetField(value.ToString());
if (field == null)
return value.ToString();
var attribute = field.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(DescriptionAttribute), false)
.OfType<DescriptionAttribute>()
.SingleOrDefault();
return attribute != null
? attribute.Description
: value.ToString();
}
}
Use it like this:
public enum Foo
{
[Description("Hello")]
Bar,
[Description("World")]
Baz
}
var value = Foo.Bar;
var description = value.GetDescription(); // Hello
Depending on your needs, you could cache the descriptions if reflection proves to be too slow for you, just modify the GetDescription method.
EDIT: to account for the additional info in the comment.
As it looks like you need something more extensible, you could use a custom attribute:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Field, AllowMultiple = true, Inherited = false)]
public sealed class DescriptionEntryAttribute : Attribute
{
public string Key { get; private set; }
public string Value { get; private set; }
public DescriptionEntryAttribute(string key, string value)
{
Key = key;
Value = value;
}
}
Which would let you to do this:
public enum Foo
{
[DescriptionEntry("Name", "Hello")]
[DescriptionEntry("Title", "Some title")]
Bar,
[DescriptionEntry("Name", "World")]
[DescriptionEntry("Title", "Some title")]
Baz
}
Now, to read this thing, I'd advise you to store it in a cache like that:
public static class EnumExtensions
{
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<Type, DescriptionCache> Caches = new ConcurrentDictionary<Type, DescriptionCache>();
public static string GetDescription(this Enum value, string key)
{
var enumType = value.GetType();
var cache = Caches.GetOrAdd(enumType, type => new DescriptionCache(type));
return cache.GetDescription(value, key);
}
public static IEnumerable<TEnum> GetValuesFromDescription<TEnum>(string key, string description)
where TEnum : struct
{
var cache = Caches.GetOrAdd(typeof(TEnum), type => new DescriptionCache(type));
return cache.GetValues(key, description).Select(value => (TEnum)(object)value);
}
private class DescriptionCache
{
private readonly ILookup<Enum, Tuple<string, string>> _items;
private readonly ILookup<Tuple<string, string>, Enum> _reverse;
public DescriptionCache(Type enumType)
{
if (!enumType.IsEnum)
throw new ArgumentException("Not an enum");
_items = (from value in Enum.GetValues(enumType).Cast<Enum>()
let field = enumType.GetField(value.ToString())
where field != null
from attribute in field.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (DescriptionEntryAttribute), false).OfType<DescriptionEntryAttribute>()
select new {value, key = attribute.Key, description = attribute.Value})
.ToLookup(i => i.value, i => Tuple.Create(i.key, i.description));
_reverse = (from grp in _items
from description in grp
select new {value = grp.Key, description})
.ToLookup(i => i.description, i => i.value);
}
public string GetDescription(Enum value, string key)
{
var tuple = _items[value].FirstOrDefault(i => i.Item1 == key);
return tuple != null ? tuple.Item2 : null;
}
public IEnumerable<Enum> GetValues(string key, string description)
{
return _reverse[Tuple.Create(key, description)];
}
}
}
This way:
Foo.Bar.GetDescription("Name") returns "Hello"
EnumExtensions.GetValuesFromDescription<Foo>("Title", "Some title") returns a sequence containing Foo.Bar and Foo.Baz
That should be enough to get you started, now you should tweak it to your needs. For instance, you could use an enum instead of a string for the keys, it would help avoid typing mistakes, but I don't know if this would suit your needs.
Your problem is that static methods and variables are essentially not inherited. They are variables that don't act on instances of the class themselves, but provide some functionality to the class.
So you have a bunch of different enums, and you want to populate them based on different stuff. So let's look at what parts you have, and what is common:
PopulateMap: Not common
Enum type: Not common
Storage variable: Common
Populate Map if empty: Common
So all you really want is a way to populate the map once, when it's used. There is already a class for this, it's called Lazy. Using that, the code becomes:
public abstract class TypeToString<Type>
{
protected TypeToString()
{
storage = new Lazy<Dictionary<Type, string>>(GetMap);
}
private Lazy<Dictionary<Type, string>> storage;
protected abstract Dictionary<Type, string> GetMap();
public string Get(Type t) {return storage.Value[t];}
}
public class MyEnumToString : TypeToString<MyEnum>
{
protected override Dictionary<MyEnum, string> GetMap()
{
return null;
}
public static Get(MyEnum e) { return new MyEnumToString.Get(e); }
}
Alternatively, you can decorate your enums with a [DescriptionAttribute] and then create a method to get the description of a specific enum. This is what I did when I was faced with a similar problem. (Be sure to cache the results for the enum, as it used reflection which was slow.)
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)));
}
}