We Keep Coding

Build dynamic predicate based on generic type

How do I make this expression dynamic based on the generic type passed in the parameter?
In the simplified form:
public static class CompareService
{
public static List<T> Run<T>(List<T> database_list, string directory_path)
{
var csv_list = CompareService.MergeRecordsFromFiles<T>(directory);
return CompareService.RunComparison<T>(database_list, csv_list);
}
public static T CompareData<T>(List<T> database_list, List<T> csv_list)
{
var diff = new List<T>();
foreach (var db_item in database_list)
{
// ...
// if T is of type Deathstar compare reference_number property
// if T is of type Stormtrooper compare id property
// if T is of type Sith compare id and anger_level property
var csv_item = csv_list.FirstOrDefault(x => x.reference_number == db_item.reference_number);
// Comparison code
ComparisonResult result = compareLogic.Compare(db_item, csv_item);
// ...
}
return diff;
}
}
It is called from another generic service:
public static void Whatever<T>(List<T> list)
{
// ...
var directory_path = "C:\";
var delta = CompareService.CompareData<T>(list, directory_path);
// ...
}

The most naive implementation would be to check if your itemToFind can be cast to DeathStar, StormTrooper or Sith and if so call the instances property.
var deathStar = itemToFind as DeathStar;
if(deathStar != null)
return database_list.Where(x => ((DeathStar)x).reference_number == deathStar.reference_number).FirstOrDefault();
else
{
var sith = itemToFind as Sith;
if(sith != null)
return database_list.Where(x => ((Sith)x).anger_level == sith.anger_level).FirstOrDefault();
else
return database_list.Where(x => ((StormTrooper)x).id== ((StormTrooper)item).id).FirstOrDefault();
}
This is quite cumbersome, including many casts. In particular it completely bypasses the actual benefits of generics using any arbitrary type (that fullfills the constraints if existing). In your case you´d have a generic method that will only wortk for three decent types.
A better approach is to let all your classes implement a common interface that defines a property, for instance:
interface IObject {
int Level { get; }
}
Now all classes define that level-property:
clas DeathStar : IObject
{
public int Level { get { return this.reference_number; } }
}
clas Sith : IObject
{
public int Level { get { return this.anger_level; } }
}
clas StormTrooper: IObject
{
public int Level { get { return this.id; } }
}
Than you can use a constraint on your type T to implement that interface:
public static T CompareData<T>(List<T> list, T itemToFind) where T: IObject

Why not like this:
public static T CompareData<T>(List<T> list, Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
return database_list.FirstOrDefault(predicate);
}
And then use it like this:
var itemToFind = new ItemToFind();
var myObjectList = new List<MyObject>();
var item = CompareData<MyObject>(myObjectList, x=> x.MyObjectProperty == itemToFind.Id);

You could add a property selector:
public static class CompareService
{
public static T CompareData<T>(this List<T> list, T itemToFind, Func<T, int> propSelector)
{
int propToFind = propSelector(itemToFind); // cache
return database_list.FirstOrDefault(x => propSelector(x) == propToFind);
}
}
And call it like that:
listOfDeathstars.CompareData(deathStarToFind, ds => ds.reference_number);
listOfStormtroopers.CompareData(trooperToFind, t => t.id);
listOfSiths.CompareData(sithStarToFind, sith => new { sith.id, sith.anger_level});
Note: I added the this keyword in the signature to make it an extension (not sure if you intended that but forgot the keyword). And Where(predicate).FirstOrDefault() can be reduced to FirstOrDefault(predicate).

Mapper supporting both : "mapping from xml" and "unflattening"

rI know two tools : Value injector and Automapper. Each of them is currently supporting one of the feature, that i realy need. :) Background: i'm using stored procedure to load data from DB. relations 1 to many are handled as XML properties. Let's consider following example
public class AutorDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Post> Posts { get; set; }
public ICity City { get; set; }
}
public interface ICity
{
string Name { get; set; }
string Code { get; set; }
}
public class CityDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
}
public class PostDto
{
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
}
I have stored procedure, that will return me this structure in following schema :
public class Autor_From_Stored_Procedure
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Posts { get; set; }
public string CityName { get; set; }
public string CityCode { get; set; }
}
In order to map Autor_From_Stored_Procedure to AutorDto we must handle two topics:
Deserializing from XML (i've managed to handle this problem using automapper. I've used this topic : Automapper to create object from XML) and this article : http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/706992/Using-AutoMapper-with-Complex-XML-Data
Unflattening. It seems, that AutoMapper is not supporting convention based unflattening. Is, that true ? I saw, that there is posibility to declare some string (e.g. "City") as Unflattened object and everything should work - but value injector offers this as a convetion based standard:
objectToIll.InjectFrom < UnflatLoopInjection>(object) - without neccessity to declare which properties [names in specific] would be deflattened) Is this also possible with automapper ?
If not, then maybe i should focus on value injector. If so - the problem from the 1) point is still valid (hopefully it is solved as easly as in automapper)
Penny for your thoughts!
##Update
I've changed Dto definitions adding interface to City (as this is my case)

I will post anwser to my question - maybe it will help someone. I've moved from Automapper to Valueinjecter. Xml binding was done using custom AddMap() and using XmlSerializer (no magic here)
But it turns out, that there will be problem with Interface on "Autor" class (and deflattening) You cannot simply create interface instance and this was the problem. I've modified slightly valueinjecter Tunnelier class to handle such case.
Firstly i've tried to cover this using somehow convention (if you find property ISomething, cut "I" add "Dto" But it is not elegant solution. So i ended up with custom : Inteface+Class mapping (so i'm pointing out : if you see ISomething interface, create instance of SomethingDto) Here is the modified code (maybe this could be added to valueinjecter implementation ?) The main "Mapper" class is not partial so i've defined new class for those mappings:
namespace Omu.ValueInjecter
{
public partial class MapperActivations
{
public static ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Type> InterfaceActivations = new ConcurrentDictionary<Type, Type>();
public static void AddInterfaceActivation<Interface, Class>()
{
InterfaceActivations.AddOrUpdate(typeof(Interface), typeof(Class), (key, oldValue) => typeof(Class));
}
}
}
Here are modified valueInjected classes:
public static class TunnelierCustom
{
public static PropertyWithComponent Digg(IList<string> trail, object o)
{
var type = o.GetType();
if (trail.Count == 1)
{
return new PropertyWithComponent { Component = o, Property = type.GetProperty(trail[0]) };
}
var prop = type.GetProperty(trail[0]);
var val = prop.GetValue(o);
if (val == null)
{
if (prop.PropertyType.IsInterface)
{
if (MapperActivations.InterfaceActivations.ContainsKey(prop.PropertyType))
{
val = Activator.CreateInstance(MapperActivations.InterfaceActivations[prop.PropertyType]);
}
else
{
throw new Exception("Unable to create instance of: " + prop.PropertyType.Name + ". Are you missing InterfaceActivations bidning? Please add it using MapperActivations.AddInterfaceActivation<Interface, Class>() statement");
}
}
else
{
val = Activator.CreateInstance(prop.PropertyType);
}
prop.SetValue(o, val);
}
trail.RemoveAt(0);
return Digg(trail, val);
}
public static PropertyWithComponent GetValue(IList<string> trail, object o, int level = 0)
{
var type = o.GetType();
if (trail.Count == 1)
{
return new PropertyWithComponent { Component = o, Property = type.GetProperty(trail[0]), Level = level };
}
var prop = type.GetProperty(trail[0]);
var val = prop.GetValue(o);
if (val == null) return null;
trail.RemoveAt(0);
return GetValue(trail, val, level + 1);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// performs flattening and unflattening
/// first version of this class was made by Vadim Plamadeala ☺
/// </summary>
public static class UberFlatterCustom
{
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Unflat(string flatPropertyName, object target, Func<string, PropertyInfo, bool> match, StringComparison comparison)
{
var trails = TrailFinder.GetTrails(flatPropertyName, target.GetType().GetProps(), match, comparison, false).Where(o => o != null);
return trails.Select(trail => TunnelierCustom.Digg(trail, target));
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Unflat(string flatPropertyName, object target, Func<string, PropertyInfo, bool> match)
{
return Unflat(flatPropertyName, target, match, StringComparison.Ordinal);
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Unflat(string flatPropertyName, object target)
{
return Unflat(flatPropertyName, target, (upn, pi) => upn == pi.Name);
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Flat(string flatPropertyName, object source, Func<string, PropertyInfo, bool> match)
{
return Flat(flatPropertyName, source, match, StringComparison.Ordinal);
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Flat(string flatPropertyName, object source, Func<string, PropertyInfo, bool> match, StringComparison comparison)
{
var trails = TrailFinder.GetTrails(flatPropertyName, source.GetType().GetProps(), match, comparison).Where(o => o != null);
return trails.Select(trail => TunnelierCustom.GetValue(trail, source));
}
public static IEnumerable<PropertyWithComponent> Flat(string flatPropertyName, object source)
{
return Flat(flatPropertyName, source, (up, pi) => up == pi.Name);
}
}
public class UnflatLoopCustomInjection : ValueInjection
{
protected override void Inject(object source, object target)
{
var sourceProps = source.GetType().GetProps();
foreach (var sp in sourceProps)
{
Execute(sp, source, target);
}
}
protected virtual bool Match(string upn, PropertyInfo prop, PropertyInfo sourceProp)
{
return prop.PropertyType == sourceProp.PropertyType && upn == prop.Name;
}
protected virtual void SetValue(object source, object target, PropertyInfo sp, PropertyInfo tp)
{
tp.SetValue(target, sp.GetValue(source));
}
protected virtual void Execute(PropertyInfo sp, object source, object target)
{
if (sp.CanRead)
{
var endpoints = UberFlatterCustom.Unflat(sp.Name, target, (upn, prop) => Match(upn, prop, sp)).ToArray();
foreach (var endpoint in endpoints)
{
SetValue(source, endpoint.Component, sp, endpoint.Property);
}
}
}
}
And this is example use :
MapperActivations.AddInterfaceActivation<ICity, City>();
Mapper.AddMap<Auto_From_Stored_Procedure, AutorDto>(src =>
{
var res = new User();
res.InjectFrom<UnflatLoopCustomInjection>(src);
res.Posts = Mapper.Map<XElement, List<Posts>>(src.PostsXml , "PostDto"); //this is mapping using XmlSerializer, PostsXml is XElement.Parse(Posts) in Autor_From_Stored_Procedure.
return res;
});

new version has been released 3.1
you can now specify an activator parameter for the UnflatLoopInjection
have a look at this unit test

Simulate variadic templates in C#

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.

Duck Typing DynamicObject derivate

I wrote a class that allows a derivate to specify which of its properties can be lazy loaded. The code is:
public abstract class SelfHydratingEntity<T> : DynamicObject where T : class {
private readonly Dictionary<string, LoadableBackingField> fields;
public SelfHydratingEntity(T original) {
this.Original = original;
this.fields = this.GetBackingFields().ToDictionary(f => f.Name);
}
public T Original { get; private set; }
protected virtual IEnumerable<LoadableBackingField> GetBackingFields() {
yield break;
}
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result) {
LoadableBackingField field;
if (this.fields.TryGetValue(binder.Name, out field)) {
result = field.GetValue();
return true;
} else {
var getter = PropertyAccessor.GetGetter(this.Original.GetType(), binder.Name);
result = getter(this.Original);
return true;
}
}
public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value) {
LoadableBackingField field;
if (this.fields.TryGetValue(binder.Name, out field)) {
field.SetValue(value);
return true;
} else {
var setter = PropertyAccessor.GetSetter(this.Original.GetType(), binder.Name);
setter(this.Original, value);
return true;
}
}
}
And a derivate class:
public class SelfHydratingPerson : SelfHydratingEntity<IPerson> {
private readonly IDataRepository dataRepository;
public SelfHydratingDerivate(IDataRepository dataRepository, IPerson person)
: base(person) {
this.dataRepository = dataRepository
}
protected override IEnumerable<LoadableBackingField> GetBackingFields() {
yield return new LoadableBackingField("Address", () => this.dataRepository.Addresses.Get(this.Original.AddressID));
}
}
This works perfectly fine for getting and settings property values, but I get a either a RuntimeBinderException when I implicitly cast or an InvalidCastException with an explicitly cast SelfHydratingEntity back to T.
I know that you can override the DynamicObject.TryConvert method, but I'm wondering what exactly to put in this method. I've read a lot about duck typing today, and have tried out several libraries, but none of them work for this particular scenario. All of the libraries I've tried today generate a wrapper class using Reflection.Emit that makes calls to "get_" and "set_" methods and naturally use reflection to find these methods on the wrapped instance. SelfHydratingEntity of course doesn't have the "get_" and "set_" methods defined.
So, I'm wondering if this kind of thing is even possible. Is there any way to cast an instance of SelfHydratingEntity to T? I'm looking for something like this:
var original = GetOriginalPerson();
dynamic person = new SelfHydratingPerson(new DataRepository(), original);
string name = person.Name; // Gets property value on original
var address = person.Address; // Gets property value using LoadableBackingField registration
var iPerson = (IPerson)person;
- or -
var iPerson = DuckType.As<IPerson>(person);

Have you seen this Duck Typing project. It looks pretty good. I have just found a great example from Mauricio. It uses the Windsor Castle dynamic proxy to intercept method calls
Using the code from Mauricio the following code works like a dream
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic person = new { Name = "Peter" };
var p = DuckType.As<IPerson>(person);
Console.WriteLine(p.Name);
}
}
public interface IPerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
public static class DuckType
{
private static readonly ProxyGenerator generator = new ProxyGenerator();
public static T As<T>(object o)
{
return generator.CreateInterfaceProxyWithoutTarget<T>(new DuckTypingInterceptor(o));
}
}
public class DuckTypingInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
private readonly object target;
public DuckTypingInterceptor(object target)
{
this.target = target;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
var methods = target.GetType().GetMethods()
.Where(m => m.Name == invocation.Method.Name)
.Where(m => m.GetParameters().Length == invocation.Arguments.Length)
.ToList();
if (methods.Count > 1)
throw new ApplicationException(string.Format("Ambiguous method match for '{0}'", invocation.Method.Name));
if (methods.Count == 0)
throw new ApplicationException(string.Format("No method '{0}' found", invocation.Method.Name));
var method = methods[0];
if (invocation.GenericArguments != null && invocation.GenericArguments.Length > 0)
method = method.MakeGenericMethod(invocation.GenericArguments);
invocation.ReturnValue = method.Invoke(target, invocation.Arguments);
}
}

impromptu-interface
https://github.com/ekonbenefits/impromptu-interface
Can static cast interfaces onto objects derived from DynamicObject.

How to reduce type declarations when using lambda parameters?

Below is a heavily cut down version of some code I have
public class DataInfo<T>
{
public DataInfo(string description, Func<T, object> funcToGetValue)
{
this.description = description;
this.funcToGetValue= funcToGetValue;
}
public readonly string description;
public readonly Func<T, object> funcToGetValue;
}
public class DataType1
{
public int fieldA { get; set; }
public string fieldB { get; set; }
}
public class CurrentUse
{
static List<DataInfo<DataType1>> data1 = new List<DataInfo<DataType1>>()
{
new DataInfo<DataType1>("someStuff", data => data.fieldA),
new DataInfo<DataType1>("someOtherStuff", data => data.fieldB)
};
}
(There are many types, and don't worry not everything is public really!)
This is working and is OK as far as it goes, but the fact that I have to keep repeating new DataInfo<DataType1> bothers me a bit.
I tried creating a non generic helper verion of DataInfo to create the objects for me as so
public class DataInfo
{
public static DataInfo<T> Create<T>(string description, Func<T, object> func)
{
return new DataInfo<T>(description, func);
}
}
public class DesiredUse
{
static List<DataInfo<DataType1>> data1 = new List<DataInfo<DataType1>>()
{
DataInfo.Create("someStuff", data => data.fieldA),
DataInfo.Create("someOtherStuff", data => data.fieldB)
};
}
But that doesn't work as it the compiler cannot resolve fieldA & fieldB as it cannot infer the type of data.
Any ideas how I can get rid of the duplicated type info? I don't mind making changes, as long as I end up with a list of DataInfos

I'd create a builder class:
public sealed class DataInfoListBuilder<T> : IEnumerable
{
private readonly List<DataInfo<T>> list = new List<DataInfo<T>>();
public void Add(string description, Func<T, object> function)
{
list.Add(DataInfo.Create<T>(description, function));
}
public List<DataInfo<T>> Build()
{
return list;
}
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
throw new InvalidOperationException
("IEnumerator only implemented for the benefit of the C# compiler");
}
}
Then use it as:
static List<DataInfo<DataType1>> data1 = new DataInfoListBuilder<DataType1>
{
{ "someStuff", data => data.fieldA },
{ "someOtherStuff", data => data.fieldB }
}.Build();
I haven't tested it, but I think that should work. You could make it a non-generic type within DataInfo, in which case you'd use:
static List<DataInfo<DataType1>> data1 = new DataInfo<DataType1>.Builder
{ ... }.Build();

You can possibly inherit from List> and provide a specialized add method:
public class SpecialList<T> : List<DataInfo<T>>
{
public void Add(string description, Func<T, object> func)
{
base.Add(new DataInfo<T>(description, func));
}
}
Then, you can use it like this:
public class CurrentUse
{
public static SpecialList<DataType1> Data1
{
get
{
SpecialList<DataType1> list = new SpecialList<DataType1>();
list.Add("someStuff", data => data.fieldA);
list.Add("someOtherStuff", data => data.fieldB);
return list;
}
}