We Keep Coding

confused about return methods and voids in C#

Want feedback if i`m correct here?
Use void if you are not returning anything in a method,
otherwise
Name your data types used in the method criteria before method name.
use Return in the method before the calculation or output.
So something like this.
static int MyMethod(int x)
{
return 5 + x;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(MyMethod(3));
}
// Outputs 8 (5 + 3)
What if my method has ints and doubles?
Do I write as follows? (another words do I have to mention every type i`m using prior to the method name?
static int double myMethod (int x, double y)
Even with that I dont know when is a method void? It seems my methods all return values.
Isnt the following returning the values of the arguments? So why should I label it void?
static void MyMethod(string fname, int age)
{
Console.WriteLine(fname + " is " + age);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyMethod("Liam", 20);
MyMethod("Jenny", 25);
MyMethod("Tom", 31);
}
I can only think that a void means there is no new calculation being done in the actual method body, passing arguments into a method and spitting them out for user viewing does not mean its "returning a value", I dont know what i`m talking about.

Let's be completely clear about what these bullets mean.
Use void if you are not returning anything in a method, otherwise
In this context, "return" means that the method provides an output that can be assigned to a variable by the caller. For example
int Return10()
{
return 10;
}
...allows the caller to do this:
int x = Return10();
Console.WriteLine(x); //Outputs "10"
A method should "return" void when its results cannot be assigned. For example, if the results are printed on the screen.
void Print10()
{
Console.WriteLine("10"); //Prints 10 to the screen
}
...which allows the caller to do this:
Print10();
You cannot assign it because it doesn't return anything. This doesn't work:
int x = Print10(); //Compiler error
Name your data types used in the method criteria before method name.
A method can return exactly one value or object. So "types" here is wrong. You can only specify one type.
Use return in the method before the calculation or output.
This is a little misleading. The return keyword should be followed by an expression which can be assigned.
int Return10()
{
return 10 + 10; //Is okay because it's an expression and could be assigned
}
int Return10()
{
var x = 10 + 10;
return x; //This is also okay; in fact it does exactly the same thing as the previous example
}
int Return10()
{
return Console.WriteLine("10"); //Compiler error; can't be assigned to anything.
}
By the way, a method can also output something and return it:
int WriteAndReturn10()
{
int x = 10;
Console.WriteLine(x);
return x;
}

I am going to address the following
What if my method has ints and doubles? Do I write as follows?
(another words do I have to mention every type i`m using prior to the
method name?
There are no built in ways or syntax to return more than one type from a method as the return parameter.. This is basically historical and has been this way since dinosaurs roamed the earth.
However, there are lots of options that achieve the same result. For instance, you could use a custom struct, you could use out parameters, you could use a class, or a delegate parameter of some kind. However, a modern succinct approach might be to use a Value Tuple:
static (int someInt, double someDouble) myMethod (int x, double y)
{
return (x,y);
}
Fun Fact : even though this looks like you a returning more than one type, you are actually just invoking a special syntax that wraps your return parameters in a single type of struct
Usage
var result = myMethod(1,2.2);
Console.WriteLine(result.someInt);
Console.WriteLine(result.someDouble);
Or if you want to get fancy, you can use the newer deconstructed syntax
var (someInt, someDouble) = myMethod(1,2.2);
Console.WriteLine(someInt);
Console.WriteLine(someDouble);
Additional Resources
return (C# Reference)
Methods (C# Programming Guide)
Tuple types (C# reference)
out parameter modifier (C# Reference)
ref (C# Reference)
Using Delegates (C# Programming Guide)

What's the difference between System.ValueTuple and System.Tuple?

I decompiled some C# 7 libraries and saw ValueTuple generics being used. What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.tuple
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.valuetuple

What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
A ValueTuple is a struct which reflects a tuple, same as the original System.Tuple class.
The main difference between Tuple and ValueTuple are:
System.ValueTuple is a value type (struct), while System.Tuple is a reference type (class). This is meaningful when talking about allocations and GC pressure.
System.ValueTuple isn't only a struct, it's a mutable one, and one has to be careful when using them as such. Think what happens when a class holds a System.ValueTuple as a field.
System.ValueTuple exposes its items via fields instead of properties.
Until C# 7, using tuples wasn't very convenient. Their field names are Item1, Item2, etc, and the language hadn't supplied syntax sugar for them like most other languages do (Python, Scala).
When the .NET language design team decided to incorporate tuples and add syntax sugar to them at the language level an important factor was performance. With ValueTuple being a value type, you can avoid GC pressure when using them because (as an implementation detail) they'll be allocated on the stack.
Additionally, a struct gets automatic (shallow) equality semantics by the runtime, where a class doesn't. Although the design team made sure there will be an even more optimized equality for tuples, hence implemented a custom equality for it.
Here is a paragraph from the design notes of Tuples:
Struct or Class:
As mentioned, I propose to make tuple types structs rather than
classes, so that no allocation penalty is associated with them. They
should be as lightweight as possible.
Arguably, structs can end up being more costly, because assignment
copies a bigger value. So if they are assigned a lot more than they
are created, then structs would be a bad choice.
In their very motivation, though, tuples are ephemeral. You would use
them when the parts are more important than the whole. So the common
pattern would be to construct, return and immediately deconstruct
them. In this situation structs are clearly preferable.
Structs also have a number of other benefits, which will become
obvious in the following.
Examples:
You can easily see that working with System.Tuple becomes ambiguous very quickly. For example, say we have a method which calculates a sum and a count of a List<Int>:
public Tuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var sum = 0;
var count = 0;
foreach (var value in values) { sum += value; count++; }
return new Tuple(sum, count);
}
On the receiving end, we end up with:
Tuple<int, int> result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
// What is Item1 and what is Item2?
// Which one is the sum and which is the count?
Console.WriteLine(result.Item1);
Console.WriteLine(result.Item2);
The way you can deconstruct value tuples into named arguments is the real power of the feature:
public (int sum, int count) DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var res = (sum: 0, count: 0);
foreach (var value in values) { res.sum += value; res.count++; }
return res;
}
And on the receiving end:
var result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {result.sum}, Count: {result.count}");
Or:
var (sum, count) = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {sum}, Count: {count}");
Compiler goodies:
If we look under the cover of our previous example, we can see exactly how the compiler is interpreting ValueTuple when we ask it to deconstruct:
[return: TupleElementNames(new string[] {
"sum",
"count"
})]
public ValueTuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
ValueTuple<int, int> result;
result..ctor(0, 0);
foreach (int current in values)
{
result.Item1 += current;
result.Item2++;
}
return result;
}
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> expr_0E = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
int item = expr_0E.Item1;
int arg_1A_0 = expr_0E.Item2;
}
Internally, the compiled code utilizes Item1 and Item2, but all of this is abstracted away from us since we work with a decomposed tuple. A tuple with named arguments gets annotated with the TupleElementNamesAttribute. If we use a single fresh variable instead of decomposing, we get:
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> valueTuple = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Sum: {0}, Count: {1})", valueTuple.Item1, valueTuple.Item2));
}
Note that the compiler still has to make some magic happen (via the attribute) when we debug our application, as it would be odd to see Item1, Item2.

The difference between Tuple and ValueTuple is that Tuple is a reference type and ValueTuple is a value type. The latter is desirable because changes to the language in C# 7 have tuples being used much more frequently, but allocating a new object on the heap for every tuple is a performance concern, particularly when it's unnecessary.
However, in C# 7, the idea is that you never have to explicitly use either type because of the syntax sugar being added for tuple use. For example, in C# 6, if you wanted to use a tuple to return a value, you would have to do the following:
public Tuple<string, int> GetValues()
{
// ...
return new Tuple(stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
However, in C# 7, you can use this:
public (string, int) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
You can even go a step further and give the values names:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.S;
... Or deconstruct the tuple entirely:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var (S, I) = GetValues();
string s = S;
Tuples weren't often used in C# pre-7 because they were cumbersome and verbose, and only really used in cases where building a data class/struct for just a single instance of work would be more trouble than it was worth. But in C# 7, tuples have language-level support now, so using them is much cleaner and more useful.

I looked at the source for both Tuple and ValueTuple. The difference is that Tuple is a class and ValueTuple is a struct that implements IEquatable.
That means that Tuple == Tuple will return false if they are not the same instance, but ValueTuple == ValueTuple will return true if they are of the same type and Equals returns true for each of the values they contain.

In addition to the comments above, one unfortunate gotcha of ValueTuple is that, as a value type, the named arguments get erased when compiled to IL, so they're not available for serialisation at runtime.
i.e. Your sweet named arguments will still end up as "Item1", "Item2", etc. when serialised via e.g. Json.NET.

Other answers forgot to mention important points.Instead of rephrasing, I'm gonna reference the XML documentation from source code:
The ValueTuple types (from arity 0 to 8) comprise the runtime implementation that underlies
tuples in C# and struct tuples in F#.
Aside from created via language syntax, they are most easily created via the
ValueTuple.Create factory methods.
The System.ValueTuple types differ from the System.Tuple types in that:
they are structs rather than classes,
they are mutable rather than readonly, and
their members (such as Item1, Item2, etc) are fields rather than properties.
With introduction of this type and C# 7.0 compiler, you can easily write
(int, string) idAndName = (1, "John");
And return two values from a method:
private (int, string) GetIdAndName()
{
//.....
return (id, name);
}
Contrary to System.Tuple you can update its members (Mutable) because they are public read-write Fields that can be given meaningful names:
(int id, string name) idAndName = (1, "John");
idAndName.name = "New Name";

Late-joining to add a quick clarification on these two factoids:
they are structs rather than classes
they are mutable rather than readonly
One would think that changing value-tuples en-masse would be straightforward:
foreach (var x in listOfValueTuples) { x.Foo = 103; } // wont even compile because x is a value (struct) not a variable
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo;
Someone might try to workaround this like so:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples.Select(x => x.Foo = 103);
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' should be 103 right? wrong! it is '10'
The reason for this quirky behavior is that the value-tuples are exactly value-based (structs) and thus the .Select(...) call works on cloned-structs rather than on the originals. To resolve this we must resort to:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples = listOfValueTuples
.Select(x => {
x.Foo = 103;
return x;
})
.ToList();
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Alternatively of course one might try the straightforward approach:
for (var i = 0; i < listOfValueTuples.Length; i++) {
listOfValueTuples[i].Foo = 103; //this works just fine
// another alternative approach:
//
// var x = listOfValueTuples[i];
// x.Foo = 103;
// listOfValueTuples[i] = x; //<-- vital for this alternative approach to work if you omit this changes wont be saved to the original list
}
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Hope this helps someone struggling to make heads of tails out of list-hosted value-tuples.

Assign a formula at runtime for accessing elements of List

The scenario is that I have say two different types of cases - case 1 and case 2. For case 1 and case 2 each I have a certain startIndex, endIndex and a formula for accessing the elements of a List.
Now for assigning values startIndex and endIndex I am preferring a normal switch case, however I am at loss for the formula for accessing elements. For case 1 it is say something like List[ a+i ] and for case 2 it is say List[a + (i-b)].
One way can be to have a for loop like this
for(int i=0;;i++)
{
if(case is 1)
then f=a+i
else if(case 2)
then f=a+(i-b)
}
I thought of using delegates. however, as per my knowledge they need to be made global. Actions do not return value. Func can be used but one expression/formula takes only one element (int) and the other takes 3. I need something in lines to this like that anonymous function can be assigned any of above mentioned formulae at runtime from the switch case (as the cases might and will increase in future).
Thank you.

I thought of using delegates. however, as per my knowledge they need
to be made global.
This is not true (actually, there are no truly global variables in C#, since each and every variable needs to be encapsulated inside an object). A public delegate type is indeed visible to all code after referencing the assembly containing this type's code, but a variable of such type can be private.
What I recommend in your situation is to have some sort of mapping from case numbers to delegates. A good idea is to use a Dictionary<TKey, TValue> if you have at most one delegate per case. This dictionary can be stored as a private variable inside the class where your method resides.
public class MyClass
{
private Dictionary<int, Delegate> _delegateMapping = new Dictionary<int, Delegate>;
}
There are a couple of ways you can add elements do the dictionary in the constructor: passing the already populated dictionary, passing an array of delegates, creating these delegates in the constructor itself. Either way, you'll end up with a dictionary of Delegate types, so you'll need to use a cast to be able to use them in your code properly.
for (int i = 1; i < _delegateMapping.Count; i++)
{
switch (i)
{
case 1:
var f = (Action<int>)_delegateMapping[1];
f(i);
break;
case 2:
var f = (Action<int, int>)_delegateMapping[2];
f(i, a);
break;
}
}
Of course I'm greatly improvising here.
It is important to note that if the type of delegate changes inside the dictionary, you will have to modify the cast accordingly inside the switch statement. Otherwise, if no implicit cast exists, you'll get a runtime exception.

Hi guys thank you so very much for your feedbacks. I finally found the solution with Func. This is what my code looks like. I had to manipulate the Func usage a little. I made almost all the vars which I have to use in the Func as global/local to the function where I write these Funcs. My apologies, if I was not able to explain my problem properly.
int i = -1;
Func<int,int> formula = null;
switch(f)
{
case 1:
{
formula = new Func<int,int>(index => { return i; });
}
break;
case 2:
{
formula = new Func<int, int>( index => { return s- (i * c); } );//here s and c are global variables.
}
break;
}
i = startIndex;
while(i < endIndex)
{
var Obj= List[formula.Invoke(i)];
//my code goes here
i++;
}
Let me know if my solution is correct w.r.t performance, logic, C# programming, etc.. :)
EDITED::
#usr and #Kapol I tried the way you suggested and tried to improvise the code like this.
private Dictionary<int, Func<int[], int>> indexFormulae;
private void assignDelegates()
{
indexFormulae = new Dictionary<int, Func<int[], int>>();
indexFormulae.Add(0, getFormula_1);
indexFormulae.Add(1, getFormula_2);
}
private void someFunction(int sp)
{
int i = 0;
Func<int[], int> formula = null;
indexFormulae.TryGetValue(formation,out formula);
i = startIndex;
while (i < endIndex)
{
int[] intValues = new int[] {i,sp,globalVar };
var Obj = List[formula.Invoke(intValues)];
//My code here
i++;
}
}
private int getFormula_1(params int[] intValues)
{
return intValues[0];
}
private int getIndex_Vertical(params int[] intValues)
{
return intValues[1] - (intValues[0] * intValues[2]);
}
So, that with this now I can use these two getFormula methods anywhere in this class rather than keeping them anonymous. and also I think I will stick to params because I might have N number of int params in future for other functions.

Inline use of function returning more than one value in C#

I am used to using functions that return a single value "in-line" like so:
Label1.Text = firstString + functionReturnSecondString(aGivenParameter);
Can this be done for a function that returns two values?
Hypothetical example:
label1.Text = multipleReturnFunction(parameter).firstValue
I have been looking into returning more than one value and it looks like the best options are using a tuple, struct, or an array list.
I made a working function that retuns a struct. However the way I got it to work I need to first call the function, then I can use the values. It doesn't seem possible to make it happen all on the same line without writing another function.
multipleReturnFunction(parameter);
Label1.Text = firstString + classOfStruct.secondString;
I haven't made a function that returns a tuple or array list yet, so I'm not sure. Is it possible to call those functions and reference the return values "inline"?
I appreciate your feedback.

I have a grotty hack for exactly this type of scenario - when you want to perform multiple operations on the return value without defining an extra variable to store it:
public static TResult Apply<TInput, TResult>(this TInput input, Func<TInput, TResult> transformation)
{
return transformation(input);
}
... and here's the reason it came about in the first place:
var collection = Enumerable.Range(1, 3);
// Average reimplemented with Aggregate.
double average = collection
.Aggregate(
new { Count = 0, Sum = 0 },
(acc, i) => new { Count = acc.Count + 1, Sum = acc.Sum + i })
.Apply(a => (double)a.Sum / (double)a.Count); // Note: we have access to both Sum and Count despite never having stored the result of the call to .Aggregate().
Console.WriteLine("Average: {0}", average);
Needless to say this is better suited for academic exercises than actual production code.

Alternatively, use the ref or they out keyword.
Example:
int a = 0, b = 0;
void DoSomething(ref int a, ref int b) {
a = 1;
b = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine(a); // Prints 1
Console.WriteLine(b); // Prints 2
It's not inline and I personally would consider a class or a struct before using the ref or the out keyword. Let's consider the theory: when you want to return multiple things, you have in fact an object that has multiple properties which you want to make available to the caller of your function.
Therefore it is much more correct to actually create an object (either by using a class or a struct) that represents what you want to make available and returning that.
The only time I use the ref or the out keyword is when using DLL imports because those functions often have pointers as their calling arguments and I personally don't see any benefit in using them in your typical normal application.

To do this inline, I think you would have to have another method that takes your struct and gives you the string you are looking for.
public string NewMethod(object yourStruct)
{
return string.Format("{0} {1}", yourStruct.value1, yourStruct.value2);
}
Then in the page, you do this:
Label1.Text = NewMethod(multipleReturnFunction(parameter));

C# doesn't have Inline functions, but it does support anonymous functions which can be closures.
With these techniques, you can say:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
}))("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
((Action<String>)(arg => {
firstString="123"+arg;
secondString="456";
}))("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
or name the delegate and reuse it:
var firstString=default(String);
var secondString=default(String);
Action<String> m=
arg => {
firstString="abc"+arg;
secondString="xyz";
};
m("wtf");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
m("???");
label1.Text=firstString+secondString;
Debug.Print("{0}", label1.Text);
So, do you really need a method returns multiple values?

Each method can return only one value. Thats how methods defined in .NET
Methods are declared in a class or struct by specifying the access
level such as public or private, optional modifiers such as abstract
or sealed, the return value, the name of the method, and any method
parameters
If you need to return more than one value from method, then you have three options:
Return complex type which will hold all values. That cannot help you in this case, because you will need local variable to store value returned by method.
Use out parameters. Also not your case - you will need to declare parameters before method call.
Create another method, which does all work and returns single value.
Third option looks like
Label1.Text = AnotherMethod(parameters);
And implementation
public string AnotherMethod(parameters)
{
// use option 1 or 2 to get both values
// return combined string which uses both values and parameters
}
BTW One more option - do not return values at all - you can use method which sets several class fields.

What is this Type in .NET (Reflection)

What is this Type in .NET? I am using reflection to get a list of all the classes and this one turns up.
What is it? where does it come from? How is the name DisplayClass1 chosen? I search the sources and didnt see anything. What does the <> mean? what does the c__ mean? is there reference?

It's almost certainly a class generated by the compiler due to a lambda expression or anonymous method. For example, consider this code:
using System;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
int x = 10;
Func<int, int> foo = y => y + x;
Console.WriteLine(foo(x));
}
}
That gets compiled into:
using System;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
ExtraClass extra = new ExtraClass();
extra.x = 10;
Func<int, int> foo = extra.DelegateMethod;
Console.WriteLine(foo(x));
}
private class ExtraClass
{
public int x;
public int DelegateMethod(int y)
{
return y + x;
}
}
}
... except using <>c_displayClass1 as the name instead of ExtraClass. This is an unspeakable name in that it isn't valid C# - which means the C# compiler knows for sure that it won't appear in your own code and clash with its choice.
The exact manner of compiling anonymous functions is implementation-specific, of course - as is the choice of name for the extra class.
The compiler also generates extra classes for iterator blocks and (in C# 5) async methods and delegates.

Jon is of course correct. I've provided a "decoder ring" for figuring out what the various compiler-generate type names mean here:
Where to learn about VS debugger 'magic names'
The names are quite long and we sometimes get complaints that we're bulking up the size of metadata as a result. We might change the name generation rules to address this concern at any time in the future. It is therefore very important that you not write code that takes advantage of knowledge of this compiler implementation detail.