We Keep Coding

C# Dictionary of generic classes

I am new to C#. I am trying to implement a Dictionary in C# whose Java-equivalent is:
HashMap<string, Variable<?>> dictionary
Here is the detailed Java version of what I'm trying to do: Java how to manage user-defined variables
In C# so far I have something like this:
interface IVariable { }
public class Variable<T> : IVariable
{
public T myValue { get; set; }
}
Dictionary<string, IVariable> vars = new Dictionary<string, IVariable>();
Then I try to do this:
Variable<int> age = new Variable<int>();
age.myValue = 12;
vars.Add("age", age);
IVariable theVar;
if (vars.TryGetValue("age", out theVar) {
Console.WriteLine("fetched age is " + theVar.myValue);
}
I run into trouble in the last line because the compiler doesn't recognize the myValue member of a theVar because it is an IVariable.
In this simple example maybe I could declare theVar to be a Variable<int> instead of an IVariable but I haven't tried it because it would require a priori knowledge about what kind of variable I'm fetching from the dictionary and I might not always have that knowledge.
I wouldn't mind if myValue were an inherited/abstract property (if there is such a thing), since every Variable will have a property named myValue (each will differ in type but not in name). In that case I guess I could make IVariable an abstract class rather than an interface, but then I still run into trouble as far as what to put for the type of myValue.
Could I do a cast of theVar into something using as by first checking its type with is? I'm not sure if that would work or is even possible.
I've looked at these posts for guidance (especially the second one):
Wildcard equivalent in C# generics
C# Generics: wildcards
However, my situation is still slightly different than the second example above because that example has an abstract method that is returning a void whereas I wish to have my variables return non-void generic values.
Thanks for any help.

C# has dynamic. You can create Dictionary<string, dynamic>
Or you can use object (boxing/unboxing) Dictionary<string, object>
Or you can get generic type from class
class MyClass<TDicValue>
{
Dictionary<strint, TDicValue> myDictionary;
}

I had this same problem where I had 20 slightly different types and I had to keep dictionaries on. I wanted to organize them in a list.
The problem was the same, selecting the right kind from the list with reflection or strings lacked the ability to provide a type to return to. #skrilmps answer is correct, but packing and and unpacking was at best unreliable without a lot (metric ton) of ugly messy code.
While unity does support dynamics in 2020, this doesn't exactly work with what i am doing unless I make like everything dynamic safe and that's shamble coding, not extensible or maintainable, and just sounds like a general nightmare.
I personally feel that I am an inadequate programmer after years of trying to learn and still not having my efforts provide a productive return or product of note, so i cannot claim the answer being mine, but in my research on the proper solution to this problem i found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7qwuFnyIpM
In here he says basically if you add an interface to your similar classes that are intended for use in a variety of different lists, that you can instead make a list of that type of interface. I would assume dictionary as well, and then you can add any kind of class implementing this interface to this singular interface type defined list.

I tried using boxing/unboxing and came up with this solution. It appears to work... so far. But it doesn't seem very safe.
public interface Variable
{
object getValue();
void setValue(object value);
Type myType();
}
public class Variable<T>: Variable
{
private T myValue;
public object getValue()
{
return myValue;
}
public void setValue(object value)
{
myValue = (T)value;
}
public Type myType() { return myValue.GetType(); }
}
Dictionary<string, Variable> vars = new Dictionary<string, Variable>();
Variable<int> age = new Variable<int>();
age.setValue(21);
vars.Add("age", age);
Variable theAgeVar;
vars.TryGetValue("age", out theAgeVar);
Console.WriteLine("age = " + theAgeVar.getValue());
Variable<double> height = new Variable<double>();
height.setValue(5.9);
Variable theHeightVar;
vars.TryGetValue("age", out theHeightVar);
Debug.Log("height = " + theHeightVar.getValue());
This prints:
age = 21
height = 5.9
One thing I do not like is that I had to make the return type of getValue() be an object. If I wanted myValue (which is of type T) to implement IComparable, for instance, then this information is lost when the boxing happens and the caller receives an object.

// The following should resolve the boxing problem and now is totally generic:
public interface IVariable<T>
{
T GetContent();
void SetContent(T value);
Type GetDataType();
}
public class Variable<T> : IVariable
{
private T content;
public T GetContent()
{
return content;
}
public void SetContent(T value)
{
content = value;
}
public Type GetDataType() { return GetType(); }
}
Dictionary<string, Variable<T>> variables = new Dictionary<string, Variable<T>>();

Implictly casting a dynamic object at runtime

Say I have the following code:
class MyField : DynamicObject
{
public dynamic Value { get; private set; }
public override bool TryConvert(ConvertBinder binder, out object result)
{
result = binder.Type == Value.GetType() ? Value : null;
return result != null;
}
public MyField(dynamic v)
{
Value = v;
}
}
// ...
public static class Program
{
static void doSomething(ulong address) { /* ... */ }
public void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic field = new MyField((ulong)12345);
doSomething(field); // fails as field is not a ulong.
doSomething((ulong)field); // succeeds as field can be casted to a ulong.
ulong field2 = field; // also succeeds
}
}
Is there a way to get the first call to doSomething to succeed? I'm writing a library to read a particular file format which uses serialized C-style structures; reading the file entails reading these saved structure definitions and then "populating" them with the data contained in the rest of the file. I have a "structure" DynamicObject class (to support dot-notation access) and a "field" DynamicObject class, which is primarily necessary to hold additional information on the contents of the field; although I could probably get rid of it, it would make certain other operations more difficult. What I'd like to do is just "pretend" MyField is a certain type (well, technically just any built-in primitive or array of primitives, including 2D arrays) and implicitly convert it to that type. However, the runtime fails to try to implicitly convert field to the type required by the underlying method signature if field doesn't match the type required.

In the vein of Greg's answer, I came up with a solution that makes the runtime happy. It's not exactly what I was originally looking for, but it seems like the best solution.
Since I already have a large if-else tree in my source wherein I take an array of bytes and interpret them as an actual value-type, and indeed my current source does use an underlying generic MyField<T>, so this works fine. I can't recall why I wanted MyField to be dynamic in the first place.
Anyway, this is a modified solution.
class MyField<T>
{
public dynamic Value { get; private set; }
public MyField(dynamic v) { Value = v; }
public static implicit operator T(MyField field)
{
return (T)field.Value;
}
}
I keep coming back to wanting the runtime to just figure out what it needs to cast MyField to at runtime but I guess it's not that big of a deal. If anyone comes up with something better, let me know. I'm going to keep this question open in the meantime.

You potentially might want to look into Generics. Coupled with an interface may make the dynamic usage far more viable.
public interface Helper <TInput, TOutput>
{
<TOutput> DoSomething(TInput input);
}
So when you use this interface with a class, you'll implement your type for both input and output. Which will give you quite a bit of flexibility, which should avoid those cast that you mentioned earlier. A small example, I mean you could obviously adjust it based on needs but I still don't understand what you're trying to really do.

Using Enums that are in an external dll

I have a project I am working that will involve creating one DLL that will be used across multiple other sites. Inside this DLL we need to reference about 10 Enums. The values of these Enums however will be different for each site the DLL is used on. For example:
MyBase.dll may have a class MyClass with an attribute of type MyEnum.
MyBase.dll is then referenced in MySite. MyStie will also reference MyEnums.dll which will contain the values for the MyEnum type.
Is there any way to accomplish this? While building MyBase.dll, I know what enums will exist in side of MyEnums.dll. The problem is I cannot build MyBase.dll without specifically referenceing the MyEnums.dll, which is not created until the MyBase.dll is used in a specific project.
I hope that makes sense and hope I can find an answer here.
Thanks.
Edit:
Thanks for all the comments. It will take a few reads to completely understand, but let me try to give a better example of what I am looking at here.
Lets say the following code is in my DLL that will be put into various projects. Status is an enum.
public Class MyClass
{
private Status _currentStatus;
public Status CurrentStatus
{
get
{
return _currentStatus;
}
}
public void ChangeStatus(Status newStatus)
{
_currentStatus = newStatus;
}
}
What I want to be able to do is the define the possible values for Status in the individual projects. So in this DLL, I will never reference what values might be in the Status enum, I just have to know that it exists.
I hope that is a bit more clear on what I am trying to do.

If you want each client to see different enum values (in a different assembly version), then using an enum is a bad solution - changes will break client code...
Using an enum might work (as long as the enum names and assembly name are the same and the assembly isn't signed) - you could just swap the assembly. However, if a value is used anywhere in the code that isn't there at the end you'll end up with an exception. Also, you may have the explicitly number the values, to make sure different subsets of the values won't end up with the same number for different values or different numbers for the same value.
Instead consider using a dynamically built collection, e.g. a list, a dictionary or a database table. Or just give the same assembly with the same superset of enum values to everyone and let the users decide which values are relevant to them (perhaps use significant prefixes for values as a convention).
Or you could use a combination of the two...
Generate a different structure (different type name (or namespace) and assembly name) per site with different properties (according to site's profile) and one master structure for the service that accepts the structures. Have all the structures implement the same interface, which you expect to receive...
public interface IStatus
{
string GetKey();
}
public struct ClientXStatus : IStatus
{
private readonly string _key;
private ClientXStatus(string key)
{
_key = key;
}
// Don't forget default for structs is 0,
// therefore all structs should have a "0" property.
public ClientXStatus Default
{
get
{
return new ClientXStatus();
}
}
public ClientXStatus OptionB
{
get
{
return new ClientXStatus(10);
}
}
string IStatus.GetKey()
{
return _key;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return (obj is IStatus) && ((IStatus)obj).GetKey() == _key;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return _key.GetHashCode();
}
public static bool operator==(ClientXStatus x, IStatus y)
{
return x.Equals(y);
}
public static bool operator==(IStatus x, ClientXStatus y)
{
return y.Equals(x);
}
public static bool operator!=(ClientXStatus x, IStatus y)
{
return !x.Equals(y);
}
public static bool operator!=(IStatus x, ClientXStatus y)
{
return !y.Equals(x);
}
// Override Equals(), GetHashCode() and operators ==, !=
// So clients can compare structures to each other (to interface)
}
Use a master struct for the service:
public struct MasterStatus : IStatus
{
private readonly string _key;
private MasterStatus(string key)
{
_key = key;
}
// Don't forget default for structs is 0,
// therefore all structs should have a "0" property.
public MasterStatus Default
{
get
{
return new MasterStatus();
}
}
// You should have all the options here
public MasterStatus OptionB
{
get
{
return new MasterStatus(10);
}
}
// Here use implicit interface implementation instead of explicit implementation
public string GetKey()
{
return _key;
}
public static implicit operator MasterStatus(IStatus value)
{
return new MasterStatus(value.GetKey());
}
public static implicit operator string(MasterStatus value)
{
return new value._key;
}
// Don't forget to implement Equals, GetHashCode,
// == and != like in the client structures
}
Demo service code:
public void ServiceMethod(IStatus status)
{
switch (status.GetKey())
{
case (string)MasterStructA.OptionB:
DoSomething();
}
}
Or:
public void ChangeStatus(IStatus status)
{
_status = (MasterStatus)status;
}
This way you:
Use code generation to prevent collision of values.
Force users to use compile time checks (no int values or string values) by hiding values (as private) and only accepting your structures.
Use real polymorphism in the service's code (an interface) and not a error-prone hack.
Use immutable value types (like enums) and not reference types.

First you have to decide WHERE to put your constants. Then you can transform your enum to static properties.
For example:
public enum MyEnum
{
Value1,
Value2
}
Can be changed to (first naive approach):
public static class MyFakeEnum
{
public static int Value1
{
get { return GetActualValue("Value1"); }
}
public static int Value2
{
get { return GetActualValue("Value2"); }
}
private static int GetActualValue(string name)
{
// Put here the code to read the actual value
// from your favorite source. It can be a database, a configuration
// file, the registry or whatever else. Consider to cache the result.
}
}
This simply will provide required constants but you'll have to throw away compile-time check for the type if you'll need MyFakeEnum as parameter. For a better solution you can follow, for example, what Microsoft did (more or less) for System.Drawing.Color.
public sealed class MyFakeEnum
{
public static readonly MyFakeEnum Value1 = new MyFakeEnum("Value1");
public static readonly MyFakeEnum Value2 = new MyFakeEnum("Value2");
private MyFakeEnum(string name)
{
_name = name;
}
public static implicit operator int(MyFakeEnum value)
{
return GetActualValue(value._name);
}
private string _name;
}
Of course you should provide proper overides at least for Equals, GetHashCode and ToString.
Pro
It can be an upgrade from an existing enum. Code won't be breaked and you may just need to recompile.
You can use it as strongly typed parameter. For example: void DoSomething(MyFakeEnum value) is valid and callers can't pass something else (note that this is one of the reasons because enums are considered weak).
If you implement all the required operators you can use the normal syntax for comparison: value == MyFakeEnum::Value1.
With a little bit of code you may even implement the FlagsAttribute syntax.
You do not change the normal syntax of enums: MyFakeEnum.Value1.
You can implement any number of implicit/explicit conversion operators to/from your type and any conversion will be safe and checked in the point it's done (this is not true again with standard enums).
You do not have hard-coded strings that can be breaked by changes and won't be catched until they cause a run-time error (yes, run-time). Using, for example, a dictionary if you'll change the definitions then you'll have to search all your code for that string.
Cons
First implementation is longer because you have to write support code (but for any new value you'll simply add a new line).
Value list is fixed and must be known at compile time (this is not an issue if you're searching a replacement for an enum because it's fixed too).
With this solution you may save more or less the same syntax you had with standard enums.

Proper way to unbox database values

I'm working with an older Oracle database, and I feel there's likely a better way to go about unboxing the values I retrieve from the database.
Currently, I have a static class full of different type-specific methods:
public static int? Int(object o)
{
try
{
return (int?)Convert.ToInt32(o);
}
catch (Exception)
{
return null;
}
}
..and so on for different types, but I feel there should be a better way? If I want to unbox a value, I do something along the lines of...
int i;
i = nvl.Int(dataRow["column"]); //In this instance, "column" is of a numeric database type
I thought about using a generic class to handle all the different types, but I couldn't really figure out the best way to go about that.
Any ideas?

I find helper methods such as the following useful in your scenario - testing for DBNull is more efficient than catching an Exception as in your example:
public static MyHelper
{
public static Nullable<T> ToNullable<T>(object value) where T : struct
{
if (value == null) return null;
if (Convert.IsDBNull(value)) return null;
return (T) value;
}
public static string ToString(object value)
{
if (value == null) return null;
if (Convert.IsDBNull(value)) return null;
return (string)value;
}
}
This works for the string and the usual primitive value types you will encounter (int, decimal, double, bool, DateTime).
It's slightly different from your example in that it casts rather than converts - but personally I prefer this. I.e. if the database column is NUMERIC (decimal), I'd rather be explicit if I wanted to convert the value to int, e.g.:
int? myIntValue = (int?) MyHelper.ToNullable<decimal>(reader["MyNumericColumn"]);

You could introduce simple model classes and map between them.
For example:
public class Customer
{
public Customer(DataRow row)
{
Name = row["Name"];
}
public Name { get; private set; }
}
Of course, to reduce duplicate code, you could create a base class for your model data classes.
Depending on effort you want to spend, you could go and use an ORM mapper NHibernate.

Mutable wrapper of value types to pass into iterators

I'm writing an iterator that needs to pass around a mutable integer.
public IEnumerable<T> Foo(ref int valueThatMeansSomething)
{
// Stuff
yield return ...;
}
This nets me "Error 476 Iterators cannot have ref or out parameters".
What I need is this integer value to be modified in the iterator and usable by the caller of the iterator. In other words, whatever calls Foo() above wants to know the end value of valueThatMeansSomething and Foo() may use it itself. Really, I want an integer that is a reference type not a value type.
Only thing I can think of is to write a class that encapsulates my integer and permits me to modify it.
public class ValueWrapper<T>
where T : struct
{
public ValueWrapper(T item)
{
this.Item = item;
}
public T Item { get; set; }
}
So:
ValueWrapper<int> w = new ValueWrapper<int>(0);
foreach(T item in Foo(w))
{
// Do stuff
}
if (w.Item < 0) { /* Do stuff */ }
Is there any class or mechanism to handle this already in the BCL? Any flaws with ValueWrapper<T> proposed above?
(My actual use is more complicated than the example above so handling the variable inside my foreach loop that calls Foo() is not an option. Period.)

If you only need to write the value then another technique would be:
public IEnumerable<whatever> Foo(Action<int> setter) { ... }
int value = 0;
foreach(var x in Foo(x => {value=x;}) { ... }
Coincidentally, I'll be doing a series on the reasons why there are so many goofy restrictions on iterator blocks in my blog in July. "Why no ref parameters?" will be early in the series.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/tags/Iterators/default.aspx

Nope, I'm pretty confident there's nothing existing in the BCL that can do this. Your best option is precisely what you have proposed I think. The implementation of ValueWrapper really need not be any more complicated than what you have proposed.
Of course, it's not guaranteed to be thread-safe, but if you need that you can simply convert the automatic property into a standard one with a backing variable and mark the field as volatile (to insure the value is up-to-date at all times).

I have long thought that the BCL really should have a class and interface something like the following:
public delegate void ActByRef<T1,T2>(ref T1 p1);
public delegate void ActByRefRef<T1,T2>(ref T1 p1, ref T2 p2);
public interface IReadWriteActUpon<T>
{
T Value {get; set;}
void ActUpon(ActByRef<T> proc);
void ActUpon<TExtraParam>(ActByRefRef<T, TExtraParam> proc,
ref TExtraparam ExtraParam);
}
public sealed class MutableWrapper<T> : IReadWrite<T>
{
public T Value;
public MutableWrapper(T value) { this.Value = value; }
T IReadWriteActUpon<T>.Value {get {return this.Value;} set {this.Value = value;} }
public void ActUpon(ActByRef<T> proc)
{
proc(ref Value);
}
public void ActUpon<TExtraParam>(ActByRefRef<T, TExtraParam> proc,
ref TExtraparam ExtraParam)
{
proc(ref Value, ref ExtraParam);
}
}
Although many people instinctively wrap fields in auto-properties, fields often allow cleaner and more efficient code especially when using value types. In many situations, the increased encapsulation one can gain by using properties may be worth the cost in efficient and semantics, but when the whole purpose of a type is to be a class object whose state is completely exposed and mutable, such encapsulation is counterproductive.
The interface is included not because many users of a MutableWrapper<T> would want to use the interface instead, but rather because an IReadWriteActUpon<T> could be useful in a variety of situations, some of which would entail encapsulation, and someone who has an instance of MutableWrapper<T> might wish to pass it to code which is designed to work with data encapsulated in an IReadWriteActUpon<T> interface.