Related
Note: This question was asked at a time when C# did not yet support optional parameters (i.e. before C# 4).
We're building a web API that's programmatically generated from a C# class. The class has method GetFooBar(int a, int b) and the API has a method GetFooBar taking query params like &a=foo &b=bar.
The classes needs to support optional parameters, which isn't supported in C# the language. What's the best approach?
Surprised no one mentioned C# 4.0 optional parameters that work like this:
public void SomeMethod(int a, int b = 0)
{
//some code
}
Edit: I know that at the time the question was asked, C# 4.0 didn't exist. But this question still ranks #1 in Google for "C# optional arguments" so I thought - this answer worth being here. Sorry.
Another option is to use the params keyword
public void DoSomething(params object[] theObjects)
{
foreach(object o in theObjects)
{
// Something with the Objects…
}
}
Called like...
DoSomething(this, that, theOther);
In C#, I would normally use multiple forms of the method:
void GetFooBar(int a) { int defaultBValue; GetFooBar(a, defaultBValue); }
void GetFooBar(int a, int b)
{
// whatever here
}
UPDATE: This mentioned above WAS the way that I did default values with C# 2.0. The projects I'm working on now are using C# 4.0 which now directly supports optional parameters. Here is an example I just used in my own code:
public EDIDocument ApplyEDIEnvelop(EDIVanInfo sender,
EDIVanInfo receiver,
EDIDocumentInfo info,
EDIDocumentType type
= new EDIDocumentType(EDIDocTypes.X12_814),
bool Production = false)
{
// My code is here
}
From this site:
https://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1500861
C# does allow the use of the [Optional] attribute (from VB, though not functional in C#). So you can have a method like this:
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
public void Foo(int a, int b, [Optional] int c)
{
...
}
In our API wrapper, we detect optional parameters (ParameterInfo p.IsOptional) and set a default value. The goal is to mark parameters as optional without resorting to kludges like having "optional" in the parameter name.
You could use method overloading...
GetFooBar()
GetFooBar(int a)
GetFooBar(int a, int b)
It depends on the method signatures, the example I gave is missing the "int b" only method because it would have the same signature as the "int a" method.
You could use Nullable types...
GetFooBar(int? a, int? b)
You could then check, using a.HasValue, to see if a parameter has been set.
Another option would be to use a 'params' parameter.
GetFooBar(params object[] args)
If you wanted to go with named parameters would would need to create a type to handle them, although I think there is already something like this for web apps.
You can use optional parameters in C# 4.0 without any worries.
If we have a method like:
int MyMetod(int param1, int param2, int param3=10, int param4=20){....}
when you call the method, you can skip parameters like this:
int variab = MyMethod(param3:50; param1:10);
C# 4.0 implements a feature called "named parameters", you can actually pass parameters by their names, and of course you can pass parameters in whatever order you want :)
An easy way which allows you to omit any parameters in any position, is taking advantage of nullable types as follows:
public void PrintValues(int? a = null, int? b = null, float? c = null, string s = "")
{
if(a.HasValue)
Console.Write(a);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(b.HasValue)
Console.Write(b);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(c.HasValue)
Console.Write(c);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(s)) // Different check for strings
Console.Write(s);
else
Console.Write("-");
}
Strings are already nullable types so they don't need the ?.
Once you have this method, the following calls are all valid:
PrintValues (1, 2, 2.2f);
PrintValues (1, c: 1.2f);
PrintValues(b:100);
PrintValues (c: 1.2f, s: "hello");
PrintValues();
When you define a method that way you have the freedom to set just the parameters you want by naming them. See the following link for more information on named and optional parameters:
Named and Optional Arguments (C# Programming Guide) # MSDN
Hello Optional World
If you want the runtime to supply a default parameter value, you have to use reflection to make the call. Not as nice as the other suggestions for this question, but compatible with VB.NET.
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using System.Reflection;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Class1
{
public static void SayHelloTo([Optional, DefaultParameterValue("world")] string whom)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello " + whom);
}
[STAThread]
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
MethodInfo mi = typeof(Class1).GetMethod("sayHelloTo");
mi.Invoke(null, new Object[] { Missing.Value });
}
}
}
I agree with stephenbayer. But since it is a webservice, it is easier for end-user to use just one form of the webmethod, than using multiple versions of the same method. I think in this situation Nullable Types are perfect for optional parameters.
public void Foo(int a, int b, int? c)
{
if(c.HasValue)
{
// do something with a,b and c
}
else
{
// do something with a and b only
}
}
optional parameters are for methods. if you need optional arguments for a class and you are:
using c# 4.0: use optional arguments in the constructor of the class, a solution i prefer, since it's closer to what is done with methods, so easier to remember. here's an example:
class myClass
{
public myClass(int myInt = 1, string myString =
"wow, this is cool: i can have a default string")
{
// do something here if needed
}
}
using c# versions previous to c#4.0: you should use constructor chaining (using the :this keyword), where simpler constructors lead to a "master constructor".
example:
class myClass
{
public myClass()
{
// this is the default constructor
}
public myClass(int myInt)
: this(myInt, "whatever")
{
// do something here if needed
}
public myClass(string myString)
: this(0, myString)
{
// do something here if needed
}
public myClass(int myInt, string myString)
{
// do something here if needed - this is the master constructor
}
}
The typical way this is handled in C# as stephen mentioned is to overload the method. By creating multiple versions of the method with different parameters you effectively create optional parameters. In the forms with fewer parameters you would typically call the form of the method with all of the parameters setting your default values in the call to that method.
Using overloads or using C# 4.0 or above
private void GetVal(string sName, int sRoll)
{
if (sRoll > 0)
{
// do some work
}
}
private void GetVal(string sName)
{
GetVal("testing", 0);
}
You can overload your method. One method contains one parameter GetFooBar(int a) and the other contain both parameters, GetFooBar(int a, int b)
You can use default.
public void OptionalParameters(int requerid, int optinal = default){}
For a larger number of optional parameters, a single parameter of Dictionary<string,Object> could be used with the ContainsKey method. I like this approach because it allows me to pass a List<T> or a T individually without having to create a whole other method (nice if parameters are to be used as filters, for example).
Example (new Dictionary<string,Object>() would be passed if no optional parameters are desired):
public bool Method(string ParamA, Dictionary<string,Object> AddlParams) {
if(ParamA == "Alpha" && (AddlParams.ContainsKey("foo") || AddlParams.ContainsKey("bar"))) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Instead of default parameters, why not just construct a dictionary class from the querystring passed .. an implementation that is almost identical to the way asp.net forms work with querystrings.
i.e. Request.QueryString["a"]
This will decouple the leaf class from the factory / boilerplate code.
You also might want to check out Web Services with ASP.NET. Web services are a web api generated automatically via attributes on C# classes.
A little late to the party, but I was looking for the answer to this question and ultimately figured out yet another way to do this. Declare the data types for the optional args of your web method to be type XmlNode. If the optional arg is omitted this will be set to null, and if it's present you can get is string value by calling arg.Value, i.e.,
[WebMethod]
public string Foo(string arg1, XmlNode optarg2)
{
string arg2 = "";
if (optarg2 != null)
{
arg2 = optarg2.Value;
}
... etc
}
What's also decent about this approach is the .NET generated home page for the ws still shows the argument list (though you do lose the handy text entry boxes for testing).
I have a web service to write that takes 7 parameters. Each is an optional query attribute to a sql statement wrapped by this web service. So two workarounds to non-optional params come to mind... both pretty poor:
method1(param1, param2, param 3, param 4, param 5, param 6, param7)
method1(param1, param2, param3, param 4, param5, param 6)
method 1(param1, param2, param3, param4, param5, param7)... start to see the picture. This way lies madness. Way too many combinations.
Now for a simpler way that looks awkward but should work:
method1(param1, bool useParam1, param2, bool useParam2, etc...)
That's one method call, values for all parameters are required, and it will handle each case inside it. It's also clear how to use it from the interface.
It's a hack, but it will work.
I had to do this in a VB.Net 2.0 Web Service. I ended up specifying the parameters as strings, then converting them to whatever I needed. An optional parameter was specified with an empty string. Not the cleanest solution, but it worked. Just be careful that you catch all the exceptions that can occur.
For just in case if someone wants to pass a callback (or delegate) as an optional parameter, can do it this way.
Optional Callback parameter:
public static bool IsOnlyOneElement(this IList lst, Action callbackOnTrue = (Action)((null)), Action callbackOnFalse = (Action)((null)))
{
var isOnlyOne = lst.Count == 1;
if (isOnlyOne && callbackOnTrue != null) callbackOnTrue();
if (!isOnlyOne && callbackOnFalse != null) callbackOnFalse();
return isOnlyOne;
}
optional parameters are nothing but default parameters!
i suggest you give both of them default parameters.
GetFooBar(int a=0, int b=0) if you don't have any overloaded method, will result in a=0, b=0 if you don't pass any values,if you pass 1 value, will result in, passed value for a, 0 and if you pass 2 values 1st will be assigned to a and second to b.
hope that answers your question.
In the case when default values aren't available the way to add an optional parameter is to use .NET OptionalAttribute class - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime.interopservices.optionalattribute?view=netframework-4.8
Example of the code is below:
namespace OptionalParameterWithOptionalAttribute
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Calling the helper method Hello only with required parameters
Hello("Vardenis", "Pavardenis");
//Calling the helper method Hello with required and optional parameters
Hello("Vardenis", "Pavardenis", "Palanga");
}
public static void Hello(string firstName, string secondName,
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.OptionalAttribute] string fromCity)
{
string result = firstName + " " + secondName;
if (fromCity != null)
{
result += " from " + fromCity;
}
Console.WriteLine("Hello " + result);
}
}
}
You can try this too
Type 1
public void YourMethod(int a=0, int b = 0)
{
//some code
}
Type 2
public void YourMethod(int? a, int? b)
{
//some code
}
Im not sure if this is possible. Im using a method that takes the parameter int but i found myself in a situation where i need to be able to use a float value. Does anyone know if there is anyway to change the parameters that a predefined method can take?
Thanks All
Best
Alex
You can overload a method as follows:
public static float myMethod(float sumNumber)
{
// whatever you need for code here
return sumNumber;
}
public static int myMethod(int sumNumber)
{
// whatever you need for code here
return sumNumber;
}
C# has generics for his type of requirement, where you want to apply a logic indifferent of the type of parameter input
for example :
T foo<T>(T param)
{
return param + 1;
}
//and it can be used like this
int i;
foo<int>(i); // return type is int
float f;
foo<float>(f); // return type is float
Member overloading means creating two or more members on the same type that differ only in the number or type of parameters but have the same name. - Microsoft MSDN
// your method
public static double Inc(int i)
{
return i + 1;
}
// your method (overloaded)
public static double Inc(double d)
{
return d + 1;
}
int i = Inc(3);
double d = Inc(2.0); // You can use the same method with different parameter types
The website www.dotnetperls.com has a lot of nice examples. If you want to see another explanation besides MSDN, you may read this.
You can define a generic class for such methods.
public class GenericMethodsClass<T>
{
public static T myMethod(T sumNumber)
{
// whatever you need for code here
return sumNumber;
}
}
Calling:
GenericMethodsClass<int>.myMethod(1);
GenericMethodsClass<double>.myMethod(1.2);
This question already has answers here:
Where do I use delegates? [closed]
(8 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm relatively new in C#, & I'm wondering when to use Delegates appropriately.
they are widely used in events declaration, but when should I use them in my own code and why are they useful? why not to use something else?
I'm also wondering when I have to use delegates and I have no other alternative.
Thank you for the help!
EDIT: I think I've found a necessary use of Delegates here
A delegate is a reference to a method. Whereas objects can easily be sent as parameters into methods, constructor or whatever, methods are a bit more tricky. But every once in a while you might feel the need to send a method as a parameter to another method, and that's when you'll need delegates.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace DelegateApp {
/// <summary>
/// A class to define a person
/// </summary>
public class Person {
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
class Program {
//Our delegate
public delegate bool FilterDelegate(Person p);
static void Main(string[] args) {
//Create 4 Person objects
Person p1 = new Person() { Name = "John", Age = 41 };
Person p2 = new Person() { Name = "Jane", Age = 69 };
Person p3 = new Person() { Name = "Jake", Age = 12 };
Person p4 = new Person() { Name = "Jessie", Age = 25 };
//Create a list of Person objects and fill it
List<Person> people = new List<Person>() { p1, p2, p3, p4 };
//Invoke DisplayPeople using appropriate delegate
DisplayPeople("Children:", people, IsChild);
DisplayPeople("Adults:", people, IsAdult);
DisplayPeople("Seniors:", people, IsSenior);
Console.Read();
}
/// <summary>
/// A method to filter out the people you need
/// </summary>
/// <param name="people">A list of people</param>
/// <param name="filter">A filter</param>
/// <returns>A filtered list</returns>
static void DisplayPeople(string title, List<Person> people, FilterDelegate filter) {
Console.WriteLine(title);
foreach (Person p in people) {
if (filter(p)) {
Console.WriteLine("{0}, {1} years old", p.Name, p.Age);
}
}
Console.Write("\n\n");
}
//==========FILTERS===================
static bool IsChild(Person p) {
return p.Age < 18;
}
static bool IsAdult(Person p) {
return p.Age >= 18;
}
static bool IsSenior(Person p) {
return p.Age >= 65;
}
}
}
Output:
Children:
Jake, 12 years old
Adults:
John, 41 years old
Jane, 69 years old
Jessie, 25 years old
Seniors:
Jane, 69 years old
I agree with everything that is said already, just trying to put some other words on it.
A delegate can be seen as a placeholder for a/some method(s).
By defining a delegate, you are saying to the user of your class, "Please feel free to assign any method that matches this signature to the delegate and it will be called each time my delegate is called".
Typical use is of course events. All the OnEventX delegate to the methods the user defines.
Delegates are useful to offer to the user of your objects some ability to customize their behavior.
Most of the time, you can use other ways to achieve the same purpose and I do not believe you can ever be forced to create delegates. It is just the easiest way in some situations to get the thing done.
Say you want to write a procedure to integrate some real-valued function f (x) over some interval [a, b]. Say we want to use the 3-Point Gaussian method to do this (any will do, of course).
Ideally we want some function that looks like:
// 'f' is the integrand we want to integrate over [a, b] with 'n' subintervals.
static double Gauss3(Integrand f, double a, double b, int n) {
double res = 0;
// compute result
// ...
return res;
}
So we can pass in any Integrand, f, and get its definite integral over the closed interval.
Just what type should Integrand be?
Without Delegates
Well, without delegates, we'd need some sort of interface with a single method, say eval declared as follows:
// Interface describing real-valued functions of one variable.
interface Integrand {
double eval(double x);
}
Then we'd need to create a whole bunch of classes implementing this interface, as follows:
// Some function
class MyFunc1 : Integrand {
public double eval(double x) {
return /* some_result */ ;
}
}
// Some other function
class MyFunc2 : Integrand {
public double eval(double x) {
return /* some_result */ ;
}
}
// etc
Then to use them in our Gauss3 method, we need to invoke it as follows:
double res1 = Gauss3(new MyFunc1(), -1, 1, 16);
double res2 = Gauss3(new MyFunc2(), 0, Math.PI, 16);
And Gauss3 needs to do the look like the following:
static double Gauss3(Integrand f, double a, double b, int n) {
// Use the integrand passed in:
f.eval(x);
}
So we need to do all that just to use our arbitrary functions in Guass3.
With Delegates
public delegate double Integrand(double x);
Now we can define some static (or not) functions adhering to that prototype:
class Program {
public delegate double Integrand(double x);
// Define implementations to above delegate
// with similar input and output types
static double MyFunc1(double x) { /* ... */ }
static double MyFunc2(double x) { /* ... */ }
// ... etc ...
public static double Gauss3(Integrand f, ...) {
// Now just call the function naturally, no f.eval() stuff.
double a = f(x);
// ...
}
// Let's use it
static void Main() {
// Just pass the function in naturally (well, its reference).
double res = Gauss3(MyFunc1, a, b, n);
double res = Gauss3(MyFunc2, a, b, n);
}
}
No interfaces, no clunky .eval stuff, no object instantiation, just simple function-pointer like usage, for a simple task.
Of course, delegates are more than just function pointers under the hood, but that's a separate issue (function chaining and events).
Delegates are extremely useful when wanting to declare a block of code that you want to pass around. For example when using a generic retry mechanism.
Pseudo:
function Retry(Delegate func, int numberOfTimes)
try
{
func.Invoke();
}
catch { if(numberOfTimes blabla) func.Invoke(); etc. etc. }
Or when you want to do late evaluation of code blocks, like a function where you have some Transform action, and want to have a BeforeTransform and an AfterTransform action that you can evaluate within your Transform function, without having to know whether the BeginTransform is filled, or what it has to transform.
And of course when creating event handlers. You don't want to evaluate the code now, but only when needed, so you register a delegate that can be invoked when the event occurs.
Delegates Overview
Delegates have the following properties:
Delegates are similar to C++ function pointers, but are type safe.
Delegates allow methods to be passed as parameters.
Delegates can be used to define callback methods.
Delegates can be chained together; for example, multiple methods can be called on a single event.
Methods don't need to match the delegate signature exactly. For more information, see Covariance and Contra variance.
C# version 2.0 introduces the concept of Anonymous Methods, which permit code blocks to be passed as parameters in place of a separately defined method.
I've just go my head around these, and so I'll share an example as you already have descriptions but at the moment one advantage I see is to get around the Circular Reference style warnings where you can't have 2 projects referencing each other.
Let's assume an application downloads an XML, and then saves the XML to a database.
I have 2 projects here which build my solution: FTP and a SaveDatabase.
So, our application starts by looking for any downloads and downloading the file(s) then it calls the SaveDatabase project.
Now, our application needs to notify the FTP site when a file is saved to the database by uploading a file with Meta data (ignore why, it's a request from the owner of the FTP site). The issue is at what point and how? We need a new method called NotifyFtpComplete() but in which of our projects should it be saved too - FTP or SaveDatabase? Logically, the code should live in our FTP project. But, this would mean our NotifyFtpComplete will have to be triggered or, it will have to wait until the save is complete, and then query the database to ensure it is in there. What we need to do is tell our SaveDatabase project to call the NotifyFtpComplete() method direct but we can't; we'd get a ciruclar reference and the NotifyFtpComplete() is a private method. What a shame, this would have worked. Well, it can.
During our application's code, we would have passed parameters between methods, but what if one of those parameters was the NotifyFtpComplete method. Yup, we pass the method, with all of the code inside as well. This would mean we could execute the method at any point, from any project. Well, this is what the delegate is. This means, we can pass the NotifyFtpComplete() method as a parameter to our SaveDatabase() class. At the point it saves, it simply executes the delegate.
See if this crude example helps (pseudo code). We will also assume that the application starts with the Begin() method of the FTP class.
class FTP
{
public void Begin()
{
string filePath = DownloadFileFromFtpAndReturnPathName();
SaveDatabase sd = new SaveDatabase();
sd.Begin(filePath, NotifyFtpComplete());
}
private void NotifyFtpComplete()
{
//Code to send file to FTP site
}
}
class SaveDatabase
{
private void Begin(string filePath, delegateType NotifyJobComplete())
{
SaveToTheDatabase(filePath);
/* InvokeTheDelegate -
* here we can execute the NotifyJobComplete
* method at our preferred moment in the application,
* despite the method being private and belonging
* to a different class.
*/
NotifyJobComplete.Invoke();
}
}
So, with that explained, we can do it for real now with this Console Application using C#
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
/* I've made this class private to demonstrate that
* the SaveToDatabase cannot have any knowledge of this Program class.
*/
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Note, this NotifyDelegate type is defined in the SaveToDatabase project
NotifyDelegate nofityDelegate = new NotifyDelegate(NotifyIfComplete);
SaveToDatabase sd = new SaveToDatabase();
sd.Start(nofityDelegate);
Console.ReadKey();
}
/* this is the method which will be delegated -
* the only thing it has in common with the NofityDelegate
* is that it takes 0 parameters and that it returns void.
* However, it is these 2 which are essential.
* It is really important to notice that it writes
* a variable which, due to no constructor,
* has not yet been called (so _notice is not initialized yet).
*/
private static void NotifyIfComplete()
{
Console.WriteLine(_notice);
}
private static string _notice = "Notified";
}
public class SaveToDatabase
{
public void Start(NotifyDelegate nd)
{
/* I shouldn't write to the console from here,
* just for demonstration purposes
*/
Console.WriteLine("SaveToDatabase Complete");
Console.WriteLine(" ");
nd.Invoke();
}
}
public delegate void NotifyDelegate();
}
I suggest you step through the code and see when _notice is called and when the method (delegate) is called as this, I hope, will make things very clear.
However, lastly, we can make it more useful by changing the delegate type to include a parameter.
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
/* I've made this class private to demonstrate that the SaveToDatabase
* cannot have any knowledge of this Program class.
*/
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SaveToDatabase sd = new SaveToDatabase();
/* Please note, that although NotifyIfComplete()
* takes a string parameter, we do not declare it,
* all we want to do is tell C# where the method is
* so it can be referenced later,
* we will pass the parameter later.
*/
var notifyDelegateWithMessage = new NotifyDelegateWithMessage(NotifyIfComplete);
sd.Start(notifyDelegateWithMessage );
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void NotifyIfComplete(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
public class SaveToDatabase
{
public void Start(NotifyDelegateWithMessage nd)
{
/* To simulate a saving fail or success, I'm just going
* to check the current time (well, the seconds) and
* store the value as variable.
*/
string message = string.Empty;
if (DateTime.Now.Second > 30)
message = "Saved";
else
message = "Failed";
//It is at this point we pass the parameter to our method.
nd.Invoke(message);
}
}
public delegate void NotifyDelegateWithMessage(string message);
}
I consider delegates to be Anonymous Interfaces. In many cases you can use them whenever you need an interface with a single method, but you don't want the overhead of defining that interface.
A delegate is a simple class that is used to point to methods with a specific signature, becoming essentially a type-safe function pointer. A delegate's purpose is to facilitate a call back to another method (or methods), after one has been completed, in a structured way.
While it could be possible to create an extensive set of code to perform this functionality, you don’t need too. You can use a delegate.
Creating a delegate is easy to do. Identify the class as a delegate with the "delegate" keyword. Then specify the signature of the type.
Invoking an extension method that works on a interface from an implementor seems to require the use of the this keyword. This seems odd.
Does anyone know why?
Is there an easier way to get shared implementation for an interface?
This irks me as I'm suffering multiple inheritance/mixin withdrawl.
Toy example:
public interface ITest
{
List<string> TestList { get; }
}
public static class TestExtensions
{
private const string Old = "Old";
private const string New = "New";
public static void ManipulateTestList(this ITest test)
{
for (int i = 0; i < test.TestList.Count; i++)
{
test.TestList[i] = test.TestList[i].Replace(Old, New);
}
}
}
public class Tester : ITest
{
private List<string> testList = new List<string>();
public List<string> TestList
{
get { return testList; }
}
public Tester()
{
testList.Add("OldOne");
testList.Add("OldTwo");
// Doesn't work
// ManipulateTestList();
// Works
this.ManipulateTestList();
}
}
I asked this exact question to the language team directly. I don't have the e-mail to hand, but basically the answer (from Mads, IIRC) was that it is:
to reduce the search-space / complexity - i.e. not having to consider all available extension methods (and prune them) unless there is the expression first.
to reduce the chance of an extension method "taking over" a regular method (i.e. being a better match) unexpectedly
Personally, I'd have liked it to work consistently - the first doesn't seem a big problem (but then, I don't write compilers), and neither approaches the fact that normally this.* is an optional thing (that may have influences such as local code style guidelines, i.e. "thou shalt use this.").
The relevant section in the language specification says:
7.6.5.2 Extension method invocations
In a method invocation (§7.5.5.1) of
one of the forms
expr . identifier ( )
expr . identifier ( args )
expr . identifier < typeargs > ( )
expr . identifier < typeargs > ( args )
if the normal processing of the
invocation finds no applicable
methods, an attempt is made to process
the construct as an extension method
invocation. If expr or any of the args
has compile-time type dynamic,
extension methods will not apply.
This clearly says that extension methods can only be invoked on an expression (expr). This expression can, of course, be “this”, but it must be present.
Extension methods are a compiler trick that work on an object that redirect the call to a static method in another static class. 'this. is the object, that the compiler passes the static method. The non working example is simply the compiler telling you that the method is not and instance method scoped to the class.
Note: This question was asked at a time when C# did not yet support optional parameters (i.e. before C# 4).
We're building a web API that's programmatically generated from a C# class. The class has method GetFooBar(int a, int b) and the API has a method GetFooBar taking query params like &a=foo &b=bar.
The classes needs to support optional parameters, which isn't supported in C# the language. What's the best approach?
Surprised no one mentioned C# 4.0 optional parameters that work like this:
public void SomeMethod(int a, int b = 0)
{
//some code
}
Edit: I know that at the time the question was asked, C# 4.0 didn't exist. But this question still ranks #1 in Google for "C# optional arguments" so I thought - this answer worth being here. Sorry.
Another option is to use the params keyword
public void DoSomething(params object[] theObjects)
{
foreach(object o in theObjects)
{
// Something with the Objects…
}
}
Called like...
DoSomething(this, that, theOther);
In C#, I would normally use multiple forms of the method:
void GetFooBar(int a) { int defaultBValue; GetFooBar(a, defaultBValue); }
void GetFooBar(int a, int b)
{
// whatever here
}
UPDATE: This mentioned above WAS the way that I did default values with C# 2.0. The projects I'm working on now are using C# 4.0 which now directly supports optional parameters. Here is an example I just used in my own code:
public EDIDocument ApplyEDIEnvelop(EDIVanInfo sender,
EDIVanInfo receiver,
EDIDocumentInfo info,
EDIDocumentType type
= new EDIDocumentType(EDIDocTypes.X12_814),
bool Production = false)
{
// My code is here
}
From this site:
https://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1500861
C# does allow the use of the [Optional] attribute (from VB, though not functional in C#). So you can have a method like this:
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
public void Foo(int a, int b, [Optional] int c)
{
...
}
In our API wrapper, we detect optional parameters (ParameterInfo p.IsOptional) and set a default value. The goal is to mark parameters as optional without resorting to kludges like having "optional" in the parameter name.
You could use method overloading...
GetFooBar()
GetFooBar(int a)
GetFooBar(int a, int b)
It depends on the method signatures, the example I gave is missing the "int b" only method because it would have the same signature as the "int a" method.
You could use Nullable types...
GetFooBar(int? a, int? b)
You could then check, using a.HasValue, to see if a parameter has been set.
Another option would be to use a 'params' parameter.
GetFooBar(params object[] args)
If you wanted to go with named parameters would would need to create a type to handle them, although I think there is already something like this for web apps.
You can use optional parameters in C# 4.0 without any worries.
If we have a method like:
int MyMetod(int param1, int param2, int param3=10, int param4=20){....}
when you call the method, you can skip parameters like this:
int variab = MyMethod(param3:50; param1:10);
C# 4.0 implements a feature called "named parameters", you can actually pass parameters by their names, and of course you can pass parameters in whatever order you want :)
An easy way which allows you to omit any parameters in any position, is taking advantage of nullable types as follows:
public void PrintValues(int? a = null, int? b = null, float? c = null, string s = "")
{
if(a.HasValue)
Console.Write(a);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(b.HasValue)
Console.Write(b);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(c.HasValue)
Console.Write(c);
else
Console.Write("-");
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(s)) // Different check for strings
Console.Write(s);
else
Console.Write("-");
}
Strings are already nullable types so they don't need the ?.
Once you have this method, the following calls are all valid:
PrintValues (1, 2, 2.2f);
PrintValues (1, c: 1.2f);
PrintValues(b:100);
PrintValues (c: 1.2f, s: "hello");
PrintValues();
When you define a method that way you have the freedom to set just the parameters you want by naming them. See the following link for more information on named and optional parameters:
Named and Optional Arguments (C# Programming Guide) # MSDN
Hello Optional World
If you want the runtime to supply a default parameter value, you have to use reflection to make the call. Not as nice as the other suggestions for this question, but compatible with VB.NET.
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using System.Reflection;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Class1
{
public static void SayHelloTo([Optional, DefaultParameterValue("world")] string whom)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello " + whom);
}
[STAThread]
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
MethodInfo mi = typeof(Class1).GetMethod("sayHelloTo");
mi.Invoke(null, new Object[] { Missing.Value });
}
}
}
I agree with stephenbayer. But since it is a webservice, it is easier for end-user to use just one form of the webmethod, than using multiple versions of the same method. I think in this situation Nullable Types are perfect for optional parameters.
public void Foo(int a, int b, int? c)
{
if(c.HasValue)
{
// do something with a,b and c
}
else
{
// do something with a and b only
}
}
optional parameters are for methods. if you need optional arguments for a class and you are:
using c# 4.0: use optional arguments in the constructor of the class, a solution i prefer, since it's closer to what is done with methods, so easier to remember. here's an example:
class myClass
{
public myClass(int myInt = 1, string myString =
"wow, this is cool: i can have a default string")
{
// do something here if needed
}
}
using c# versions previous to c#4.0: you should use constructor chaining (using the :this keyword), where simpler constructors lead to a "master constructor".
example:
class myClass
{
public myClass()
{
// this is the default constructor
}
public myClass(int myInt)
: this(myInt, "whatever")
{
// do something here if needed
}
public myClass(string myString)
: this(0, myString)
{
// do something here if needed
}
public myClass(int myInt, string myString)
{
// do something here if needed - this is the master constructor
}
}
The typical way this is handled in C# as stephen mentioned is to overload the method. By creating multiple versions of the method with different parameters you effectively create optional parameters. In the forms with fewer parameters you would typically call the form of the method with all of the parameters setting your default values in the call to that method.
Using overloads or using C# 4.0 or above
private void GetVal(string sName, int sRoll)
{
if (sRoll > 0)
{
// do some work
}
}
private void GetVal(string sName)
{
GetVal("testing", 0);
}
You can overload your method. One method contains one parameter GetFooBar(int a) and the other contain both parameters, GetFooBar(int a, int b)
You can use default.
public void OptionalParameters(int requerid, int optinal = default){}
For a larger number of optional parameters, a single parameter of Dictionary<string,Object> could be used with the ContainsKey method. I like this approach because it allows me to pass a List<T> or a T individually without having to create a whole other method (nice if parameters are to be used as filters, for example).
Example (new Dictionary<string,Object>() would be passed if no optional parameters are desired):
public bool Method(string ParamA, Dictionary<string,Object> AddlParams) {
if(ParamA == "Alpha" && (AddlParams.ContainsKey("foo") || AddlParams.ContainsKey("bar"))) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Instead of default parameters, why not just construct a dictionary class from the querystring passed .. an implementation that is almost identical to the way asp.net forms work with querystrings.
i.e. Request.QueryString["a"]
This will decouple the leaf class from the factory / boilerplate code.
You also might want to check out Web Services with ASP.NET. Web services are a web api generated automatically via attributes on C# classes.
A little late to the party, but I was looking for the answer to this question and ultimately figured out yet another way to do this. Declare the data types for the optional args of your web method to be type XmlNode. If the optional arg is omitted this will be set to null, and if it's present you can get is string value by calling arg.Value, i.e.,
[WebMethod]
public string Foo(string arg1, XmlNode optarg2)
{
string arg2 = "";
if (optarg2 != null)
{
arg2 = optarg2.Value;
}
... etc
}
What's also decent about this approach is the .NET generated home page for the ws still shows the argument list (though you do lose the handy text entry boxes for testing).
I have a web service to write that takes 7 parameters. Each is an optional query attribute to a sql statement wrapped by this web service. So two workarounds to non-optional params come to mind... both pretty poor:
method1(param1, param2, param 3, param 4, param 5, param 6, param7)
method1(param1, param2, param3, param 4, param5, param 6)
method 1(param1, param2, param3, param4, param5, param7)... start to see the picture. This way lies madness. Way too many combinations.
Now for a simpler way that looks awkward but should work:
method1(param1, bool useParam1, param2, bool useParam2, etc...)
That's one method call, values for all parameters are required, and it will handle each case inside it. It's also clear how to use it from the interface.
It's a hack, but it will work.
I had to do this in a VB.Net 2.0 Web Service. I ended up specifying the parameters as strings, then converting them to whatever I needed. An optional parameter was specified with an empty string. Not the cleanest solution, but it worked. Just be careful that you catch all the exceptions that can occur.
For just in case if someone wants to pass a callback (or delegate) as an optional parameter, can do it this way.
Optional Callback parameter:
public static bool IsOnlyOneElement(this IList lst, Action callbackOnTrue = (Action)((null)), Action callbackOnFalse = (Action)((null)))
{
var isOnlyOne = lst.Count == 1;
if (isOnlyOne && callbackOnTrue != null) callbackOnTrue();
if (!isOnlyOne && callbackOnFalse != null) callbackOnFalse();
return isOnlyOne;
}
optional parameters are nothing but default parameters!
i suggest you give both of them default parameters.
GetFooBar(int a=0, int b=0) if you don't have any overloaded method, will result in a=0, b=0 if you don't pass any values,if you pass 1 value, will result in, passed value for a, 0 and if you pass 2 values 1st will be assigned to a and second to b.
hope that answers your question.
In the case when default values aren't available the way to add an optional parameter is to use .NET OptionalAttribute class - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime.interopservices.optionalattribute?view=netframework-4.8
Example of the code is below:
namespace OptionalParameterWithOptionalAttribute
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Calling the helper method Hello only with required parameters
Hello("Vardenis", "Pavardenis");
//Calling the helper method Hello with required and optional parameters
Hello("Vardenis", "Pavardenis", "Palanga");
}
public static void Hello(string firstName, string secondName,
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.OptionalAttribute] string fromCity)
{
string result = firstName + " " + secondName;
if (fromCity != null)
{
result += " from " + fromCity;
}
Console.WriteLine("Hello " + result);
}
}
}
You can try this too
Type 1
public void YourMethod(int a=0, int b = 0)
{
//some code
}
Type 2
public void YourMethod(int? a, int? b)
{
//some code
}