I'm not sure the title reflect the question that I was meant, but..
Let's say I have two classes, Entity and Component:
public abstract class Entity
{
private List<Component> _components = new List<Component>();
public void AddComponent<T>()
where T : Component
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
}
public abstract class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
public abstract void Update();
}
As you may notice, above classes are abstract classes which mean is not intended for direct use. However, on the later stage of development, I'm aware that some Component require ability that only attachable / Added by specific class that inherited to Entity class.
So, I added a class Component<T> that inherit Component:
public abstract class Entity
{
private List<Component> _components = new List<Component>();
public void AddComponent<T>()
where T : Component
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
}
public abstract class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
public abstract void Update();
}
public abstract class Component<T> : Component
{
// I hide the base.Owner with new keyword
// feel free to suggest me in case there is better approach to do this
new public T Owner
{
get { return (T)base.Owner; }
protected set { base.Owner = value; }
}
}
And now, let's say I have Foo, Bar and Processor class:
public class Foo : Entity
{
public int FooValue { get; set; }
}
public class Bar : Entity
{
public int BarValue { get; set; }
}
public class Processor : Component<Foo>
{
public override void Update()
{
Owner.FooValue = 10;
}
}
What I want to do is to make Processor class only add-able by Foo object. Currently AddComponent ignore it, so I don't know how to do that:
var foo = new Foo();
var bar = new Bar();
foo.AddComponent<Processor>(); // OK
bar.AddComponent<Processor>(); // Compiler should give an error at this point
I also tried to do this:
public void AddComponent<T, X>()
where T : Component<X>
where X : Entity
{
T component = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
component.Owner = this;
_components.Add(component);
}
However, it require me to explicitly specify the X constraint:
foo.AddComponent<Processor, Foo>();
bar.AddComponent<Processor, Bar>(); // Error, but the syntax is weird!
Any ideas?
Your post isn't clear on what constraints, if any, you have on your basic Entity and Component classes. So I don't know if the below will be feasible in your scenario. That said, I believe that if it's not, you won't be able to do what you want because otherwise the generic type parameters won't be known by the compiler.
The solution, absent any other constraints, is to make your Entity class generic, and provide the sub-class type itself as the type parameter:
class Entity { }
class Entity<T> : Entity where T : Entity<T>
{
public void AddComponent<U>(U value) where U : Component<T> { }
}
class Component<T> where T : Entity { }
class Foo : Entity<Foo> { }
class Bar : Entity<Bar> { }
class P : Component<Foo> { }
I know it looks weird. But you're basically asking for a self-referential graph of generic type dependencies, and in C# code the above is what that looks like.
You can call the AddComponent() method using type inference (so no generic parameter needed). If you try to call it with the wrong type of Component<T> object, you'll get a compiler error:
Foo foo = new Foo();
Bar bar = new Bar();
P p = new P();
foo.AddComponent(p);
bar.AddComponent(p); // CS0311
Note: I would strongly recommend against hiding class members. It doesn't really affect your question as stated (i.e. you could have left that detail out completely), but having two different properties with the same name is just asking for bugs. If you must use hiding, IMHO you should at least have the new property use the hidden property. E.g.:
class Component
{
public Entity Owner { get; protected set; }
}
class Component<T> : Component where T : Entity
{
new public T Owner
{
get { return (T)base.Owner; }
set { base.Owner = value; }
}
}
You won't get compile-time checking on assignments to the non-generic Component.Owner property, but at least you'll get a run-time error if some code tries to dereference the Owner property as the generic version, if and when the wrong type was assigned by the base type for some reason.
Related
I have the following classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView<T> : UserControl
where T : BaseViewPresenter { }
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter> { }
I have a method that looks like this (simplified)
public BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> Resolve(BaseViewPresenter model)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
// Correctly creates BaseView object
var control = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType);
// Fails to cast as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> so returns null
return control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>;
}
When I call this using an instances of LoginPresenter
var login = new LoginPresenter();
var ctl = Resolve(login);
The line Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) correctly resolves into a new instances of my LoginView, however control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> can't do the cast correctly so returns null.
Is there a way to correctly cast the control into BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> without using specific type generics?
Since LoginView inherits from BaseView<LoginPresenter>, and LoginPresenter inherits from BaseViewPresenter, I would assume there's a way to convert LoginView to BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>.
I am stuck with using .Net 3.5
This is a very frequently asked question. Let's rename your types:
abstract class Fruit { } // was BaseViewPresenter
abstract class FruitBowl<T> where T : Fruit // was BaseView
class Apple : Fruit { } // was LoginPresenter
class BowlOfApples : FruitBowl<Apple> { } // was LoginView
Your question now is:
I have a BowlOfApples, which inherits from FruitBowl<Apple>. Why can I not use it as a FruitBowl<Fruit>? An apple is a fruit, so a bowl of apples is a bowl of fruit.
No, it isn't. You can put a banana in a bowl of fruit, but you can't put a banana in a bowl of apples, and therefore a bowl of apples is not a bowl of fruit. (And by similar argument, a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of apples either.) Since the operations you can legally perform on the two types are different, they cannot be compatible.
Here is a photo of StackOverflow legend Jon Skeet demonstrating this fact:
The feature you want is called generic contravariance, and it is supported only on interfaces and delegate types when the compiler can prove that the variance is safe, and when the varying type is a reference type. For example, you can use an IEnumerable<Apple> in a context where IEnumerable<Fruit> is needed because the compiler can verify that there is no way that you can put a Banana into a sequence of fruit.
Do a search on "C# covariance and contravariance" on this site or on the web and you'll find many more details about how this feature works. In particular, my series of articles on how we designed and implemented this feature in C# 4 starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/16/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-one.aspx
I accepted Eric's answer since it provides a great explanation of why what I wanted wasn't possible, but I also thought I'd share my solution in case anyone else runs into this same problem.
I removed the generic type parameter from my original BaseView class, and created a 2nd version of the BaseView class that included the generic type parameter and specifics for it.
The first version is used by my .Resolve() method or other code that doesn't care about the specific types, and the second version is used by any code that does care, such as the implentation of a BaseView
Here's an example of how my code ended up looking
// base classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView : UserControl
{
public BaseViewPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseView<T> : BaseView
where T : BaseViewPresenter
{
public new T Presenter
{
get { return base.Presenter as T; }
set { base.Presenter = value; }
}
}
// specific classes
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter>
{
// Can now call things like Presenter.LoginPresenterMethod()
}
// updated .Resolve method used for obtaining UI object
public BaseView Resolve(BaseViewPresenter presenter)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
BaseView view = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) as BaseView;
view.Presenter = presenter;
return view;
}
You're expecting to treat the type as being covariant with respect to the generic argument. Classes can never be covariant; you'd need to use an interface rather than (or in addition to) an abstract class to make it covariant with respect to T. You'd also need to be using C# 4.0.
My usual solution to this problem is to create an intermediary class that has access to the type-parametric class's methods through delegates. Fields can also be accessed through getters/setters.
The general pattern goes:
public abstract class Super {}
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
public MyGeneralType AsGeneralType() {
return MyGeneralType.Create(this);
}
// Depending on the context, an implicit cast operator might make things
// look nicer, though it might be too subtle to some tastes.
public static implicit operator MyGeneralType(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
public int field;
public void MyMethod1() {}
public void MyMethod2(int argument) {}
public abstract bool MyMethod3(string argument);
}
public delegate T Getter<T>();
public delegate void Setter<T>(T value);
public delegate void MyMethod1Del();
public delegate void MyMethod2Del(int argument);
public delegate bool MyMethod3Del(string argument);
public class MyGeneralType {
public Getter<int> FieldGetter;
public Setter<int> FieldSetter;
public MyMethod1Del MyMethod1;
public MyMethod2Del MyMethod2;
public MyMethod3Del MyMethod3;
public static MyGeneralType Create<T>(MyAbstractType<T> t) where T : Super {
var g = new MyGeneralType();
g.FieldGetter = delegate { return t.field; };
g.FieldSetter = value => { t.field = value; };
g.MyMethod1 = t.MyMethod1;
g.MyMethod2 = t.MyMethod2;
g.MyMethod3 = t.MyMethod3;
return g;
}
public int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
The above exemplifies getting all the methods and fields but normally I only need a few of them. This is a general solution to the problem and one could feasibly write a tool to generate these intermediary classes automatically, which I might at some point.
Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/tLkmgR
Note that this is enough for all my cases, but you can be extra hacky with this:
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
// ... Same everything else ...
// data fields must become abstract getters/setters, unfortunate
public abstract int field {
get;
set;
}
public static implicit operator MyAbstractType<Super>(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
}
public class MyGeneralType : MyAbstractType<Super> {
// ... same constructors and setter/getter
// fields but only keep method fields
// that contain the method references for
// implementations of abstract classes,
// and rename them not to clash with the
// actual method names ...
public MyMethod3Del myMethod3Ref;
// Implement abstract methods by calling the corresponding
// method references.
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
return myMethod3Ref(argument);
}
// Same getters/setters but with override keyword
public override int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
And there you go, now you can literally cast a MyAbstractType<Sub> where Sub : Super to a MyAbstractType<Super>, although it's no longer the same object anymore, but it does retain the same methods and data, it's sort of a complex pointer.
public class Sub : Super {}
public class MySubType : MyAbstractType<Sub> {
public int _field;
public override int field {
get { return _field; }
set { _field = value; }
}
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
Console.WriteLine("hello " + argument);
return argument == "world";
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
MyAbstractType<Sub> sub = new MyAbstractType<Sub>();
MyAbstractType<Super> super = sub;
super.MyMethod3("hello"); // calls sub.MyMethod3();
super.field = 10; // sets sub.field
}
}
This isn't as good in my opinion, the other version of MyGeneralType is a more straighforward layer over the concrete types, plus it doesn't require rewriting the data fields, but it does actually answer the question, technically. Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/S3r3ke
Example
Using these abstract classes:
public abstract class Animal {
public string name;
public Animal(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public abstract string Sound();
}
public abstract class AnimalHouse<T> where T : Animal {
List<T> animals;
public AnimalHouse(T[] animals) {
this.animals = animals.ToList();
}
public static implicit operator GeneralAnimalHouse(AnimalHouse<T> house) {
return GeneralAnimalHouse.Create(house);
}
public List<string> HouseSounds() {
return animals.Select(animal => animal.Sound()).ToList();
}
}
We make this "general" variant:
public delegate List<string> HouseSoundsDel();
public class GeneralAnimalHouse {
public HouseSoundsDel HouseSounds;
public static GeneralAnimalHouse Create<T>(AnimalHouse<T> house) where T : Animal {
var general = new GeneralAnimalHouse();
general.HouseSounds = house.HouseSounds;
return general;
}
}
And finally with these inheritors:
public class Dog : Animal {
public Dog(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": woof";
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public Cat(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": meow";
}
}
public class DogHouse : AnimalHouse<Dog> {
public DogHouse(params Dog[] dogs) : base(dogs) {}
}
public class CatHouse : AnimalHouse<Cat> {
public CatHouse(params Cat[] cats) : base(cats) {}
}
We use it like this:
public class AnimalCity {
List<GeneralAnimalHouse> houses;
public AnimalCity(params GeneralAnimalHouse[] houses) {
this.houses = houses.ToList();
}
public List<string> CitySounds() {
var random = new Random();
return houses.SelectMany(house => house.HouseSounds())
.OrderBy(x => random.Next())
.ToList();
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
var fluffy = new Cat("Fluffy");
var miu = new Cat("Miu");
var snuffles = new Cat("Snuffles");
var snoopy = new Dog("Snoopy");
var marley = new Dog("Marley");
var megan = new Dog("Megan");
var catHouse = new CatHouse(fluffy, miu, snuffles);
var dogHouse = new DogHouse(snoopy, marley, megan);
var animalCity = new AnimalCity(catHouse, dogHouse);
foreach (var sound in animalCity.CitySounds()) {
Console.WriteLine(sound);
}
}
}
Output:
Miu: meow
Snoopy: woof
Snuffles: meow
Fluffy: meow
Marley: woof
Megan: woof
Notes:
I added names so it's clear that the method references carry their owner's data with them, for those unfamiliar with delegates.
The required using statements for this code are System, System.Collections.Generic, and System.Linq.
You can try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/6qkHL3#
A version that makes GeneralAnimalHouse a subclass of AnimalHouse<Animal> can be found here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XS0ljg
I have three classes, two of which inherit from a base class, and the third which I would like to reference one of the other two depending on the state of the application.
public class Batch
{
public Batch() { }
}
public class RequestBatch : Batch
{
public RequestBatch(string batchJobType) : base(batchJobType) { }
public override int RecordCount
{
get { return Lines.Count; }
}
}
public class ResponseBatch : Batch
{
public ResponseBatch(string batchJobType) : base(batchJobType) { }
public ResponseBatch(int BatchJobRunID)
{ }
}
Sometimes I have an instance of Child1 instantiated, and sometimes I need Child2. However, I have model that I want to pass around my application to keep everything in one place, but I want a way to make the property that holds Child1 and Child2 generic, for example:
public class BatchJob {
public List<Batch> Batches { get; set; }
}
And then later do this
public List<RequestBatch> GetBatches(...) {}
var BatchJob = new BatchJob();
BatchJob.Batches = GetBatches(...);
However, the compiler yells at me saying it can't implicitly convert Child1 to (its base type) Parent.
I get red squiggles under "= GetBatches(...." saying "Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.List' to 'System.Collections.Generic.List'
Is there a way to generify the Property so it can take any abstract of type Parent?
Thanks!
The code snipped you show does work. There is no compiler error:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var rj = new RunningJob();
rj.Property = new Child1();
rj.Property = new Child2();
}
}
public class RunningJob {
public Parent Property { get; set; }
}
public class Parent { }
public class Child1 : Parent { }
public class Child2 : Parent { }
The only issue that comes with this code is that Property is of type Parent. So you cannot call methods that are specific for Child1/Child2. This can be done using constraints on generic type parameters on class RunningJob :
public class RunningJob<TParent> where TParent : Parent
{
public TParent Property { get; set; }
}
Hence, now it is ensured that Property is of type Parent or any derived types.
One option...
public new IEnumerable<RequestBatch> GetBatches(...) {
get
{
return base.GetBatches(...).OfType<RequestBatch>();
}
}
Another...
If you don't need to modify the collection then just change from List<T> to IEnumerable<T>
More Info...
Covariance and Contravariance in Generics
A contravariance conundrum
I've been trying to do something which I hoped would be simple, but turned otherwise.
I have a base class:
public class EntityBase
{
}
and two classes that inherit from it:
public class EntityA : EntityBase
{
}
public class EntityB : EntityBase
{
}
I want to use a container type that will wrap
An instance of EntityBase
A number of children which are other instances of the container type.
I want this container expose the exact type of the EntityBase instance it contains, so I use C# generics. But I could not manage to convince C# compiler to define a list of the container type (which has a type parameter now):
public class EntityNode<T> where T : EntityBase
{
private T _node;
private List<EntityNode<EntityBase>> _children = new List<EntityNode<EntityBase>>();
public EntityNode(T pNode)
{
_node = pNode;
}
public void AddChild(EntityNode<T> pNode)
{
//_children.Add(pNode); //this is not going to work...
}
public T Root
{
get { return _node; }
set { _node = value; }
}
}
Is it possible to allow EntityNode to contain a list which in turn contains EntityNode<EntityA>, EntityNode<EntityB> and EntityNode<EntityBase> instances?
What about using List<EntityNode<T>> instead of List<EntityNode<EntityBase>>:
private List<EntityNode<T>> _children = new List<EntityNode<T>>();
I have the following classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView<T> : UserControl
where T : BaseViewPresenter { }
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter> { }
I have a method that looks like this (simplified)
public BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> Resolve(BaseViewPresenter model)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
// Correctly creates BaseView object
var control = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType);
// Fails to cast as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> so returns null
return control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>;
}
When I call this using an instances of LoginPresenter
var login = new LoginPresenter();
var ctl = Resolve(login);
The line Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) correctly resolves into a new instances of my LoginView, however control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> can't do the cast correctly so returns null.
Is there a way to correctly cast the control into BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> without using specific type generics?
Since LoginView inherits from BaseView<LoginPresenter>, and LoginPresenter inherits from BaseViewPresenter, I would assume there's a way to convert LoginView to BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>.
I am stuck with using .Net 3.5
This is a very frequently asked question. Let's rename your types:
abstract class Fruit { } // was BaseViewPresenter
abstract class FruitBowl<T> where T : Fruit // was BaseView
class Apple : Fruit { } // was LoginPresenter
class BowlOfApples : FruitBowl<Apple> { } // was LoginView
Your question now is:
I have a BowlOfApples, which inherits from FruitBowl<Apple>. Why can I not use it as a FruitBowl<Fruit>? An apple is a fruit, so a bowl of apples is a bowl of fruit.
No, it isn't. You can put a banana in a bowl of fruit, but you can't put a banana in a bowl of apples, and therefore a bowl of apples is not a bowl of fruit. (And by similar argument, a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of apples either.) Since the operations you can legally perform on the two types are different, they cannot be compatible.
Here is a photo of StackOverflow legend Jon Skeet demonstrating this fact:
The feature you want is called generic contravariance, and it is supported only on interfaces and delegate types when the compiler can prove that the variance is safe, and when the varying type is a reference type. For example, you can use an IEnumerable<Apple> in a context where IEnumerable<Fruit> is needed because the compiler can verify that there is no way that you can put a Banana into a sequence of fruit.
Do a search on "C# covariance and contravariance" on this site or on the web and you'll find many more details about how this feature works. In particular, my series of articles on how we designed and implemented this feature in C# 4 starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/16/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-one.aspx
I accepted Eric's answer since it provides a great explanation of why what I wanted wasn't possible, but I also thought I'd share my solution in case anyone else runs into this same problem.
I removed the generic type parameter from my original BaseView class, and created a 2nd version of the BaseView class that included the generic type parameter and specifics for it.
The first version is used by my .Resolve() method or other code that doesn't care about the specific types, and the second version is used by any code that does care, such as the implentation of a BaseView
Here's an example of how my code ended up looking
// base classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView : UserControl
{
public BaseViewPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseView<T> : BaseView
where T : BaseViewPresenter
{
public new T Presenter
{
get { return base.Presenter as T; }
set { base.Presenter = value; }
}
}
// specific classes
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter>
{
// Can now call things like Presenter.LoginPresenterMethod()
}
// updated .Resolve method used for obtaining UI object
public BaseView Resolve(BaseViewPresenter presenter)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
BaseView view = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) as BaseView;
view.Presenter = presenter;
return view;
}
You're expecting to treat the type as being covariant with respect to the generic argument. Classes can never be covariant; you'd need to use an interface rather than (or in addition to) an abstract class to make it covariant with respect to T. You'd also need to be using C# 4.0.
My usual solution to this problem is to create an intermediary class that has access to the type-parametric class's methods through delegates. Fields can also be accessed through getters/setters.
The general pattern goes:
public abstract class Super {}
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
public MyGeneralType AsGeneralType() {
return MyGeneralType.Create(this);
}
// Depending on the context, an implicit cast operator might make things
// look nicer, though it might be too subtle to some tastes.
public static implicit operator MyGeneralType(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
public int field;
public void MyMethod1() {}
public void MyMethod2(int argument) {}
public abstract bool MyMethod3(string argument);
}
public delegate T Getter<T>();
public delegate void Setter<T>(T value);
public delegate void MyMethod1Del();
public delegate void MyMethod2Del(int argument);
public delegate bool MyMethod3Del(string argument);
public class MyGeneralType {
public Getter<int> FieldGetter;
public Setter<int> FieldSetter;
public MyMethod1Del MyMethod1;
public MyMethod2Del MyMethod2;
public MyMethod3Del MyMethod3;
public static MyGeneralType Create<T>(MyAbstractType<T> t) where T : Super {
var g = new MyGeneralType();
g.FieldGetter = delegate { return t.field; };
g.FieldSetter = value => { t.field = value; };
g.MyMethod1 = t.MyMethod1;
g.MyMethod2 = t.MyMethod2;
g.MyMethod3 = t.MyMethod3;
return g;
}
public int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
The above exemplifies getting all the methods and fields but normally I only need a few of them. This is a general solution to the problem and one could feasibly write a tool to generate these intermediary classes automatically, which I might at some point.
Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/tLkmgR
Note that this is enough for all my cases, but you can be extra hacky with this:
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
// ... Same everything else ...
// data fields must become abstract getters/setters, unfortunate
public abstract int field {
get;
set;
}
public static implicit operator MyAbstractType<Super>(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
}
public class MyGeneralType : MyAbstractType<Super> {
// ... same constructors and setter/getter
// fields but only keep method fields
// that contain the method references for
// implementations of abstract classes,
// and rename them not to clash with the
// actual method names ...
public MyMethod3Del myMethod3Ref;
// Implement abstract methods by calling the corresponding
// method references.
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
return myMethod3Ref(argument);
}
// Same getters/setters but with override keyword
public override int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
And there you go, now you can literally cast a MyAbstractType<Sub> where Sub : Super to a MyAbstractType<Super>, although it's no longer the same object anymore, but it does retain the same methods and data, it's sort of a complex pointer.
public class Sub : Super {}
public class MySubType : MyAbstractType<Sub> {
public int _field;
public override int field {
get { return _field; }
set { _field = value; }
}
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
Console.WriteLine("hello " + argument);
return argument == "world";
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
MyAbstractType<Sub> sub = new MyAbstractType<Sub>();
MyAbstractType<Super> super = sub;
super.MyMethod3("hello"); // calls sub.MyMethod3();
super.field = 10; // sets sub.field
}
}
This isn't as good in my opinion, the other version of MyGeneralType is a more straighforward layer over the concrete types, plus it doesn't require rewriting the data fields, but it does actually answer the question, technically. Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/S3r3ke
Example
Using these abstract classes:
public abstract class Animal {
public string name;
public Animal(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public abstract string Sound();
}
public abstract class AnimalHouse<T> where T : Animal {
List<T> animals;
public AnimalHouse(T[] animals) {
this.animals = animals.ToList();
}
public static implicit operator GeneralAnimalHouse(AnimalHouse<T> house) {
return GeneralAnimalHouse.Create(house);
}
public List<string> HouseSounds() {
return animals.Select(animal => animal.Sound()).ToList();
}
}
We make this "general" variant:
public delegate List<string> HouseSoundsDel();
public class GeneralAnimalHouse {
public HouseSoundsDel HouseSounds;
public static GeneralAnimalHouse Create<T>(AnimalHouse<T> house) where T : Animal {
var general = new GeneralAnimalHouse();
general.HouseSounds = house.HouseSounds;
return general;
}
}
And finally with these inheritors:
public class Dog : Animal {
public Dog(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": woof";
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public Cat(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": meow";
}
}
public class DogHouse : AnimalHouse<Dog> {
public DogHouse(params Dog[] dogs) : base(dogs) {}
}
public class CatHouse : AnimalHouse<Cat> {
public CatHouse(params Cat[] cats) : base(cats) {}
}
We use it like this:
public class AnimalCity {
List<GeneralAnimalHouse> houses;
public AnimalCity(params GeneralAnimalHouse[] houses) {
this.houses = houses.ToList();
}
public List<string> CitySounds() {
var random = new Random();
return houses.SelectMany(house => house.HouseSounds())
.OrderBy(x => random.Next())
.ToList();
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
var fluffy = new Cat("Fluffy");
var miu = new Cat("Miu");
var snuffles = new Cat("Snuffles");
var snoopy = new Dog("Snoopy");
var marley = new Dog("Marley");
var megan = new Dog("Megan");
var catHouse = new CatHouse(fluffy, miu, snuffles);
var dogHouse = new DogHouse(snoopy, marley, megan);
var animalCity = new AnimalCity(catHouse, dogHouse);
foreach (var sound in animalCity.CitySounds()) {
Console.WriteLine(sound);
}
}
}
Output:
Miu: meow
Snoopy: woof
Snuffles: meow
Fluffy: meow
Marley: woof
Megan: woof
Notes:
I added names so it's clear that the method references carry their owner's data with them, for those unfamiliar with delegates.
The required using statements for this code are System, System.Collections.Generic, and System.Linq.
You can try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/6qkHL3#
A version that makes GeneralAnimalHouse a subclass of AnimalHouse<Animal> can be found here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XS0ljg
I don't know if this is possible, but I am trying to get the Base Class instance from a Derived Class. In C#, I can use the base keyword to access properties and methods of the Base Class (of course), but I want to use base itself. Attempting to do so results in a "Use of keyword 'base' is not valid in this context" error.
Example Code
public class SuperParent
{
public int SPID;
public SuperParent()
{
}
}
public class SubChild : SuperParent
{
public SubChild(int pSPID)
{
base.SPID = pSPID;
}
public int BaseSPID
{
get
{
SuperParent sp = base;
return sp.SPID;
}
}
}
If you're working with an instance of the derived class, there is no base instance.
An example:
class A
{
public void Foo() { ... }
}
class B : A
{
public void Bar() { ... }
}
What is not possible within B:
public void Bar()
{
// Use of keyword base not valid in this context
var baseOfThis = base;
}
You can do something like this:
public void Bar()
{
base.Foo();
}
And you can add another method like
public A GetBase()
{
return (A)this;
}
And then you can
public void Bar()
{
var baseOfThis = GetBase();
// equal to:
baseOfThis = (A)this;
}
So this GetBase() method is probably what you want.
The punchline is: If you have an instance of B, it inherits all properties and the non-overriden behaviour of A, but it does not consist of an instance of B which holds an (hidden but automatic) reference to an instance of A. You can cast your B instance to A, but it remains to be an instance of B.
Well you not provide code for your question, but i supsect you want something like
class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("base");
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("derived");
}
//// bad
//public Base MyBase
//{
// get
// {
// return base; // Use of keyword 'base' is not valid in this context
// }
//}
// work but...
public Base MyBase
{
get
{
return (Base)this;
}
}
}
But keep in mind that MyBase is really of type Derived
new Derived().MyBase.Foo(); // output "derived"
the problem hasn't been explained as clearly as it could. however, typically, you may be better to use an abstract base class and methods and then override the required methods. you can then use the base.method as required in this case (otherwise you'll have just spun up an instance of the derived class).
public abstract class foo {
public virtual void bar(){..}
}
public class footwo : foo {
public override void bar(){
// do somethng else OR:
return base.bar();
}
}
}
The derived instance IS the base instance. It's just one object instance in memory.
example:
public class A : B
{
}
var thing = new A();
thing is an instance of an A, and is also an instance of a B.
You could for example, write this line:
B thing2 = thing;
Point 1: if you want to create the base class instance within child class than it does not worth. You already have public things accessible in child.
Point 2: If you have initialized child class and now want to get base class "instance" then how can you get that if it's not initialized(Because now the base class instance is not present in the physical memory, and there is just child class instance there)?
I interpreted what they were asking a bit differently than the other answers here so I figured I would offer my $0.02.
// Create a "Parent" class that has some attributes.
public class Parent
{
public string attribute_one { get; set; }
public string attribute_two { get; set; }
public string attribute_three { get; set; }
}
// Define a class called "Child" that inherits the
// attributes of the "Parent" class.
public class Child : Parent
{
public string attribute_four { get; set; }
public string attribute_five { get; set; }
public string attribute_six { get; set; }
}
// Create a new instance of the "Child" class with
// all attributes of the base and derived classes.
Child child = new Child {
attribute_one = "interesting";
attribute_two = "strings";
attribute_three = "to";
attribute_four = "put";
attribute_five = "all";
attribute_six = "together";
};
// Create an instance of the base class that we will
// populate with the derived class attributes.
Parent parent = new Parent();
// Using reflection we are able to get the attributes
// of the base class from the existing derived class.
foreach(PropertyInfo property in child.GetType().BaseType.GetProperties())
{
// Set the values in the base class using the ones
// that were set in the derived class above.
property.SetValue(parent, property.GetValue(child));
}
The result is a new object populated with the base class properties of the child class.
class Parent
{
private Parent _parent;
public Parent()
{
_parent = this;
}
protected Parent GetParent()
{
return _parent;
}
}
class Child : Parent
{
private Parent _parent;
public Child()
{
_parent = base.GetParent();
}
}