We Keep Coding

32 bit implicit conversions fail generic overload resolution

I'm experimenting with custom integer types and came across an interesting issue involving generics, implicit conversions, and 32 bit integers.
Below is a stripped down example of how to reproduce the problem. If I have two implicit methods that convert int to MyInt and vice versa, I get a compilation error which looks like C# can't resolve which generic type to use. And it only happens with int or uint. All other integer types work fine: sbyte,byte,short,ushort,long,ulong.
If I remove one of the implicit conversion methods, it also works fine. Something to do with circular implicit conversions?
using Xunit;
public class MyInt
{
public int Value;
//If I remove either one of the implicit methods below, it all works fine.
public static implicit operator int(MyInt myInt)
{
return myInt.Value;
}
public static implicit operator MyInt(int i)
{
return new MyInt() { Value = i };
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is MyInt myInt)
{
return this.Value == myInt.Value;
}
else
{
int other_int = (int)obj;
return Value == other_int;
}
}
}
Below is the test code showing the compilation errors I get when both implicit methods are defined.
public class Test
{
[Fact]
public void EqualityTest()
{
MyInt myInt = new MyInt();
myInt.Value = 4 ;
Assert.Equal(4, myInt.Value); //Always OK which makes sense
//Compile errors when both implicit methods defined:
// Error CS1503 Argument 1: cannot convert from 'int' to 'string',
// Error CS1503 Argument 2: cannot convert from 'ImplicitConversion.MyInt' to 'string'
Assert.Equal(4, myInt);
}
}
I believe C# is complaining about not being able to convert both types to string as that is the type of the last Xunit.Assert.Equal() overload and all the others failed to match:
//Xunit.Assert.Equal methods:
public static void Equal<T>(T expected, T actual);
public static void Equal(double expected, double actual, int precision);
public static void Equal<T>(T expected, T actual, IEqualityComparer<T> comparer);
public static void Equal(decimal expected, decimal actual, int precision);
public static void Equal(DateTime expected, DateTime actual, TimeSpan precision);
public static void Equal<T>(IEnumerable<T> expected, IEnumerable<T> actual, IEqualityComparer<T> comparer);
public static void Equal<T>(IEnumerable<T> expected, IEnumerable<T> actual);
public static void Equal(string expected, string actual, bool ignoreCase = false, bool ignoreLineEndingDifferences = false, bool ignoreWhiteSpaceDifferences = false);
public static void Equal(string expected, string actual);
I don't think I've made a mistake with the implicit conversions as I can make other similar examples create the same problem when used with 32 bit ints.
I'm testing in a .NET Core 3.0 project.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Clarification:
What I would like to know is why this only fails with 32 bit integers. Implicit conversions are working (confirmed with debugging) when the types are anything else like the example below using a long.
using Xunit;
public class MyLong
{
public long Value;
public static implicit operator long(MyLong myInt)
{
return myInt.Value;
}
public static implicit operator MyLong(long i)
{
return new MyLong() { Value = i };
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is MyLong myInt)
{
return this.Value == myInt.Value;
}
else
{
long other_int = (long)obj;
return Value == other_int;
}
}
}
public class Test2
{
[Fact]
public void EqualityTest()
{
MyLong myLong = new MyLong();
myLong.Value = 4 ;
Assert.Equal(4, myLong); //NOTE! `4` is implicitly converted to a MyLong
//object for comparison. Confirmed with debugging.
}
}

Something to do with circular implicit conversions?
Yes (though, you've already demonstrated that much by showing that it works fine when one of the conversions is eliminated).
The reason this is happening with int, and not with other types, is that the type of your literal is int. This means that during overload resolution, the compiler can go either way: convert int to MyInt, or convert MyInt to int. Neither option is clearly "better" than the other, so neither of those conversions survive consideration.
Then, having ruled out the closest possible generic version of the method, of the remaining overloads available the only one left is the Equal(string, string) overload (the only other one left with just two parameters is the Equal<T>(IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable<T>), which is "worse" than the Equal(string, string) overload according to the overload resolution rules). Having found exactly one method that is clearly "better" than any others, the compiler then tries to use that method with your parameters, which of course don't fit, causing the errors to be emitted.
On the other hand…
When you try to call Equal(4, myLong), you've got two incompatible types. A literal having type int, and the MyLong value. In this case, the compiler tries each parameter one by one and finds that when it uses the MyLong type as the type parameter, it is possible to promote the int literal to a long and then implicitly convert that to MyLong. But it can't go the other way. It's not possible to select int as the generic type parameter, because MyLong can't be implicitly converted to int. So in that case, there is a "better" overload to choose, and so it's chosen.
By explicitly specifying the literal's type, you can try different combinations and see this pattern at work. First, I prefer a simpler wrapper class to test with:
public class Wrapper<T>
{
public T Value;
public static implicit operator T(Wrapper<T> wrapper) => wrapper.Value;
public static implicit operator Wrapper<T>(T value) => new Wrapper<T> { Value = value };
}
Then try these:
Wrapper<int> w1 = new Wrapper<int> { Value = 4 };
Wrapper<long> w2 = new Wrapper<long> { Value = 4 };
Assert.Equal(4, w1); // error
Assert.Equal((short)4, w1); // no error
Assert.Equal(4, w2); // no error
Assert.Equal(4L, w2); // error
The only thing that makes int special is that that's the default type for the numeric literal. Otherwise, a type that wraps int works exactly the same as a type that wraps anything else. As long as a conversion is available only in one direction between the two parameters, everything's fine. But when the conversion is available in both directions, the compiler has no choice but to throw up its hands and give up.

Implicit conversion fails when changing struct to sealed class

Struct/class in question:
public struct HttpMethod
{
public static readonly HttpMethod Get = new HttpMethod("GET");
public static readonly HttpMethod Post = new HttpMethod("POST");
public static readonly HttpMethod Put = new HttpMethod("PUT");
public static readonly HttpMethod Patch = new HttpMethod("PATCH");
public static readonly HttpMethod Delete = new HttpMethod("DELETE");
private string _name;
public HttpMethod(string name)
{
// validation of name
_name = name.ToUpper();
}
public static implicit operator string(HttpMethod method)
{
return method._name;
}
public static implicit operator HttpMethod(string method)
{
return new HttpMethod(method);
}
public static bool IsValidHttpMethod(string method)
{
// ...
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
// ...
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return _name.GetHashCode();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return _name;
}
}
The following code triggers the issue:
public class HttpRoute
{
public string Prefix { get; }
public HttpMethod[] Methods { get; }
public HttpRoute(string pattern, params HttpMethod[] methods)
{
if (pattern == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(pattern));
Prefix = pattern;
Methods = methods ?? new HttpMethod[0];
}
public bool CanAccept(HttpListenerRequest request)
{
return Methods.Contains(request.HttpMethod) && request.Url.AbsolutePath.StartsWith(Prefix);
}
}
The compiler error is created by changing the HttpMethod struct into a sealed class. The error is reported for return Methods.Contains(request.HttpMethod), note: request.HttpMethod in this case is a string. Which produces the following:
Error CS1929 'HttpMethod[]' does not contain a definition for 'Contains' and the best extension method overload 'Queryable.Contains<string>(IQueryable<string>, string)' requires a receiver of type 'IQueryable<string>'
My question is why? I can redesign the code to make it work, but I'm wanting to know why changing from struct to sealed class creates this weird error.
Edit: Adding a simplified set of example code (available here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/IZ9OXg). Take note that commenting out the implicit operator to string on the second class allows the code to compile:
public static void Main()
{
HttpMethod1[] Methods1 = new HttpMethod1[10];
HttpMethod2[] Methods2 = new HttpMethod2[10];
var res1 = Methods1.Contains("blah"); //works
var res2 = Methods2.Contains("blah"); //doesn't work
}
public struct HttpMethod1
{
public static implicit operator HttpMethod1(string method)
{
return new HttpMethod1();
}
public static implicit operator string (HttpMethod1 method)
{
return "";
}
}
public class HttpMethod2
{
public static implicit operator HttpMethod2(string method)
{
return new HttpMethod2();
}
//Comment out this method and it works fine
public static implicit operator string (HttpMethod2 method)
{
return "";
}
}

Things I know:
Plainly the problem is in type inference.
In the first case, T is deduced to be HttpMethod1.
In the struct case, there is no conversion from HttpMethod1[] to IEnumerable<string> because covariance only works on reference types.
In the class case, there is no conversion from HttpMethod2[] to IEnumerable<string> because covariance only works on reference conversions, and this is a user-defined conversion.
Things I suspect but need to confirm:
Something about the slight difference between my last two points is confusing the type inference algorithm.
UPDATE:
It has nothing to do with covariant array conversions. The problem repros even without array conversions.
It does however have to do with covariant interface conversions.
It has nothing to do with strings. (Strings are often a bit weird because they have a hard-to-remember conversion to IEnumerable<char> that occasionally messes up type inference.)
Here's a program fragment that displays the problem; update your conversions to convert to C instead of string:
public interface IFoo<out T> {}
public class C {}
public class Program
{
public static bool Contains<T>(IFoo<T> items, T item)
{
System.Console.WriteLine(typeof(T));
return true;
}
public static void Main()
{
IFoo<HttpMethod1> m1 = null;
IFoo<HttpMethod2> m2 = null;
var res1 = Contains(m1, new C()); //works
var res2 = Contains(m2, new C()); //doesn't work
}
}
This looks like a possible bug in type inference, and if it is, it is my fault; many apologies if that is the case. Sadly I do not have time to look into it further today. You might want to open an issue on github and have someone who still does this for a living look into it. I would be fascinated to learn what the result was, and if it turns out to be a bug in either the design or the implementation of the inference algorithm.

Firstly, this is an observed behavioural difference between structs and classes. The fact that you have 'sealed' your class does not affect the outcome in this scenario.
Also we know the following statement will compile as expected for HttpMethod type declared as both a struct and class, thanks to the implicit operator.
string method = HttpMethods[0];
Dealing with Arrays introduces some lesser understood compiler nuances.
Covariance
When HttpMethod is a class (reference type), with an array such as HttpRoute.HttpMethods Array covariance (12.5 C# 5.0 Language Spec) comes into play that allows HttpMethod[x] to be treated as an object. Covariance will respect inbuilt implicit reference conversions (such as type inheritance or conversion to object) and it will respect explicit operators, but it will not respect or look for user defined implicit operators. (While a bit ambigous the actual spec doc lists specifically default implicit operators and explicit operators, it does not mention the user defined operators but seeing everything else is so highly specified you can infer that user defined operators are not supported.)
Basically Covariance takes precedence over many generic type evaluations. More on this in a moment.
Array covariance specifically does not extend to arrays of value-types. For example, no conversion exists that permits an int[] to be treated as an object[].
So when HttpMethod is a struct (value type), covariance is no longer an issue and the following generic extension from System.Linq namespace will apply:
public static bool Contains<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, TSource value);
Because you have passed in a string comparator, the Contains statement will be evaluated as follows:
public static bool Contains<string>(this IEnumerable<string> source, string value);
When HttpMethod is a class (Reference Type), thanks to covariance, HttpMethod[] in it's current form comparable only with Object[] and thus IEnumerable, but not IEnumerable< T >, Why not? because the compiler needs to be able to determine the type to generate the generic implementation of IEnumerable< T > and to determine if it can perform an explicit cast from object to T.
Put another way, Compiler cannot determine if T can definetly be a String or not, so it doesn't find the match in the Linq extension methods that we were expecting.
So what can you do about it? (! Not this !)
The first common attempt might be to try using .Cast< string >() to cast the HttpMethod instances to strings for the comparison:
return HttpMethods.Cast<string>().Contains(request.Method) && request.Url.AbsolutePath.StartsWith(Prefix);
You will find that this does not work. Even though The parameter for Cast< T > is of type IEnumerable, not IEnumerable< T >. It is provided to allow you to use older collections that do not implement the generic version of IEnumerable with LINQ. Cast< T > is only designed to convert non-generic objects to their "true" type through the process of evaluating common origins for reference types or Un-Boxing for value types. If Boxing and Unboxing (C# Programming Guide) only applies to value types (structs) and since our HttpMethod type is a reference type (class) the only common origin between HttpMethod and String is Object. On HttpMethod there is no implicit, or even explicit operator that accepts Object and as it is not a value type there is no in built un-box operator that the compiler can use.
Note that this Cast<> will fail at runtime in this scenario when HttpMethod is a value type (class) the compiler will be happy to let it build.
Final Workaround
Instead of Cast< T > or relying on implicit conversions we will need to force the elements in the HttpMethods array to be explicitly cast to string (This will still use out implicit operator!) but Linq again makes this a trivial, but necessary task:
return HttpMethods.Select(c => (string)c).Contains(request.Method) && request.Url.AbsolutePath.StartsWith(Prefix);

IEnumerable<T>.Cast won't work even if an explicit cast operator is defined?

I have an explicit conversion defined from type Bar to type Foo.
public class Bar
{
public static explicit operator Foo(Bar bar)
{
return new Foo(bar.Gar);
}
}
public class Foo
{
public string Gar { get; set; }
public Foo() { }
public Foo(string gar) { Gar = gar; }
}
However, when I do:
using System.Linq;
...
var manyFoos = manyBars.Cast<Foo>();
It throws an exception saying it can't cast.
How do I tell Cast to use my cast operator to try the conversion?

Cast operators are static methods that the compiler calls when you use casts in code. They cannot be used dynamically. Enumerable.Cast does a runtime cast of two unconstrained generic types, so it cannot know during compile time which cast operators to use. To do what you want, you can use Select:
manyFoos.Select(foo => (Bar)foo);

The linq Cast method essentially does a box and unbox. It is not aware of either implicit or explicit cast operators defined in C#, which the compiler treats standard method calls.
You'd have to do something like this:
var manyFoos = manyBars.Select(bar => (Foo)bar);

As all other answers pointed type is not known in compile time since Cast method is not generic. It holds type of object and makes a explicit cast to T. this fails because you don't have conversion operator from object to Foo. And that is not possible also.
Here is a work around using dynamics in which cast will be done in runtime.
public static class DynamicEnumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<T> DynamicCast<T>(this IEnumerable source)
{
foreach (dynamic current in source)
{
yield return (T)(current);
}
}
}
Then use it like
var result = bars.DynamicCast<Foo>();//this works

Use Select:
var manyFoos = manyBars.Select(bar => (Foo)bar);

Your code doesn't actually compile. I assume that there is a property "Gar" in the "Bar" class as well?
public class Bar
{
public string Gar { get; set; }
public static explicit operator Foo(Bar bar)
{
return new Foo(bar.Gar);
}
}
public class Foo
{
public string Gar { get; set; }
public Foo() { }
public Foo(string gar) { Gar = gar; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Bar> bars = new List<Bar>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
bars.Add(new Bar() { Gar = i.ToString() });
var result = bars.Cast<Foo>();
}
+
I encaurage you to read about covariance.
Assuming A is convertible to B, X is covariant if X<A> is convertible to X<B>.
With C#’s notion of covariance (and contravariance), “convertible” means convertible via an implicit reference conversion— such as A subclassing B, or A implementing B. Numeric conversions, boxing conversions, and custom conversions are not included.
You have to do that with interfaces.

C# generic interface type inference question

I'm not sure how to phrase this question concisely without just giving the example so here goes:
public interface IThing<T>
{
void Do(T obj);
}
public class ThingOne : IThing<int>
{
public void Do(int obj)
{
}
}
public class ThingTwo : IThing<string>
{
public void Do(string obj)
{
}
}
public class ThingFactory
{
public IThing<T> Create<T>(string param)
{
if (param.Equals("one"))
return (IThing<T>)new ThingOne();
if (param.Equals("two"))
return (IThing<T>)new ThingTwo();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var f = new ThingFactory();
// any way we can get the compiler to infer IThing<int> ?
var thing = f.Create("one");
}
}

The question appears to be here:
// any way we can get the compiler to infer IThing<int> ?
var thing = f.Create("one");
No. You would need to explicitly specify the type:
var thing = f.Create<int>("one");
You can't infer the return type without having a parameter used specifically in the method. The compiler uses the parameters passed to the method to infer the type T, and in this case, it's a single string parameter, with no parameters of type T. As such, there's no way to have this inferred for you.

No, you can't do this because the result of your Create factory method will be evaluated at runtime based on the value of the parameter. Generics are for compile-time safety and in your case you cannot have such safety because the parameter value will be known only at runtime.

Why it is not possible to define generic indexers in .NET?

Why can't you create a generic indexer in .NET?
the following code throws a compiler error:
public T this<T>[string key]
{
get => /* Return generic type T. */
}
Does this mean you can't create a generic indexer for a generic member collection?

Here's a place where this would be useful. Say you have a strongly-typed OptionKey<T> for declaring options.
public static class DefaultOptions
{
public static OptionKey<bool> SomeBooleanOption { get; }
public static OptionKey<int> SomeIntegerOption { get; }
}
Where options are exposed through the IOptions interface:
public interface IOptions
{
/* since options have a default value that can be returned if nothing's
* been set for the key, it'd be nice to use the property instead of the
* pair of methods.
*/
T this<T>[OptionKey<T> key]
{
get;
set;
}
T GetOptionValue<T>(OptionKey<T> key);
void SetOptionValue<T>(OptionKey<T> key, T value);
}
Code could then use the generic indexer as a nice strongly-typed options store:
void Foo()
{
IOptions o = ...;
o[DefaultOptions.SomeBooleanOption] = true;
int integerValue = o[DefaultOptions.SomeIntegerOption];
}

I don't know why, but indexers are just syntactic sugar. Write a generic method instead and you'll get the same functionality. For example:
public T GetItem<T>(string key)
{
/* Return generic type T. */
}

Properties can't be generic in C#2.0/3.0 so therefore you can't have a generic indexer.

You can; just drop the <T> part from your declaration and it will work fine. i.e.
public T this[string key]
{
get { /* Return generic type T. */ }
}
(Assuming your class is generic with a type parameter named T).

The only thing I can think of this can be used is something along these lines:
var settings = ConfigurationSection.AppSettings;
var connectionString = settings<string>["connectionString"];
var timeout = settings<int>["timeout"];
But this doesn't actually buy you anything. You've just replaced round parentheses (as in (int)settings["timeout"]) with angle brackets, but received no additional type safety as you can freely do
var timeout = settings<int>["connectionString"];
If you have something that's strongly but not statically typed, you might want to wait until C# 4.0 with its dynamic keyword.

I like the ability to have an indexer without handing out
a direct reference to the "indexed" item. I wrote a simple
"call back" Indexer class below ...
R = the returned type from the indexer
P = the passed type into the indexer
All the indexer really does is pass the operations to
the deployer and allow them to manage what actually occurs
and gets returned.
public class GeneralIndexer<R,P>
{
// Delegates
public delegate R gen_get(P parm);
public delegate void gen_set(P parm, R value);
public delegate P[] key_get();
// Events
public event gen_get GetEvent;
public event gen_set SetEvent;
public event key_get KeyRequest;
public R this[P parm]
{
get { return GetEvent.Invoke(parm); }
set { SetEvent.Invoke(parm, value); }
}
public P[] Keys
{
get
{
return KeyRequest.Invoke();
}
}
}
To use it in a program or class:
private GeneralIndexer<TimeSpan, string> TimeIndex = new GeneralIndexer<TimeSpan,string>();
{
TimeIndex.GetEvent += new GeneralIndexer<TimeSpan, string>.gen_get(TimeIndex_GetEvent);
TimeIndex.SetEvent += new GeneralIndexer<TimeSpan, string>.gen_set(TimeIndex_SetEvent);
TimeIndex.KeyRequest += new GeneralIndexer<TimeSpan, string>.key_get(TimeIndex_KeyRequest);
}
works like a champ especially if you want to monitor access to
your list or do any special operations when something is accessed.

In recent C-sharp you can declare the return type as "dynamic". This is the same as using "object" except that the C# runtime will allow you to use it in code as if it was the type you think it is and then check at run-time to be sure you were right...