I'm trying to call a method with a definition similar to the following (simplified to avoid confusion):
public static void Register<T>(T value) where T : BaseClass, IInterface
This works fine so long as I have a class instance that defines both of those values. The problem occurs when I pass a `BaseClass' into a method and then try to use that instance in the above declaration. For example:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(BaseClass value)
{
Register(value);
}
}
I can pass and instance of a class that implements both BaseClass and IInterface into the constructor, but when I try to use that value in the Register method I get a compilation error stating:
The type 'BaseClass' cannot be used as type parameter 'T' in the generic type or method 'Register(T)'. There is no implicit reference conversion from 'BaseClass' to 'IInterface'.
If I change the type in the constructor like so:
public class MyClass
{
public MyClass(IInterface value)
{
Register(value);
}
}
I get an error stating:
The type 'IInterface' cannot be used as type parameter 'T' in the generic type or method 'Register(T)'. There is no implicit reference conversion from 'IInterface' to 'BaseClass'.
This seems like a bit of a catch-22. Is there a way that I can define the parameter to indicate that it must implement both BaseClass and IInterface?
As I was writing the question I came up with the answer and thought I would post it instead of deleting the question.
I just need to redefine the class:
public class MyClass<T> where T : BaseClass, IInterface
{
public MyClass(T value)
{
Register(value);
}
}
The solution given by Matt is an easy answer for situations where it is not necessary to store the passed-in object in a field or collection. If you need to persist the passed-in object, things get much harder. It's easy for a SomeClass<T> where T meets multiple constraints, to store items of class T and pass them as generics to routines with such constraints, but if a class has a method SomeMethod<TParam>(TParam thing) where TParam:IFoo,BaseBar, it won't have any field of type TParam. It could store thing into a field of type IFoo or BaseBar, but unless BaseBar implements IFoo, or all passed-in instances are going to derive from one particular BaseBar derivative which implements IFoo, there's no way to specify that a field's type will meet both constraints (if every instance does derive from one particular BaseBar derivative which implements IFoo, one could simply use that type as a single constraint, or for that matter not bother with generics at all—just use that as the parameter type).
There are ways of getting around these issues, either using Reflection, an interface pattern I call ISelf<T>, or some tricky nested callback interfaces. In some cases, though, it may be better to provide alternatives to methods that take double-constrained parameters (have the methods take a parameter of one constraint type, cast it to the other type, and accept the lack of compile-time safety).
Related
I got the error for the below code
public static Moq.Mock<T> CreateInstanceOfIMock<T>() {
return new Moq.Mock<T>();
}
I have solved the error it by using referred class type. See this below code
public static Moq.Mock<T> CreateInstanceOfIMock<T>() where T : class
{
return new Moq.Mock<T>();
}
Now I want to move this var mockColorsRepository = new Moq.Mock<IColorsRepository>(); code into common code by using generics. here IColorsRepository is an interface. So I made an interface reference for T instead of class like this below code
public static Moq.Mock<T> CreateInstanceOfIMock<T>() where T : interface
{
return new Moq.Mock<T>();
}
But am getting The type T must be a reference type in order to use it as parameter error. How can I refer interface instead of class to T. How can I achieve this?
class and struct in generic type constaints do not mean the same thing as the class and struct declarations that are used to declare class or struct types. Instead, they only restrict whether a generic type argument is a reference type (class), or a value type (struct).
So when you do where T : class you are not saying that T needs to be a class, you are saying that T needs to be a reference type. Similarly struct for value types.
Interfaces on their own do not have this property, so an interface can be implemented by both a reference type and a value type. As such, restricting your type to be of an interface does not really make sense there.
In your case, Moq requires you to pass a reference type, so you need to transitively carry over that type constraint in all your helper methods:
public static Moq.Mock<T> CreateInstanceOfIMock<T>()
where T : class
{
return new Moq.Mock<T>();
}
That’s all you need to do to create a mock of any valid type. You can use it with an interface using CreateInstanceOfIMock<IColorsRepository>() or any other type.
Of course, at that point, the method does not really make that much sense since it does not give you any benefit over just instantiating the mock yourself.
There's no generic constraint in C# to enforce that a type argument is an interface. But where T : class is really "where T is a reference type" - it includes interfaces.
If you wanted to enforce that T is an interface rather than a class, you could perform an execution-time check using typeof(T) within the method, but in this case it sounds like you don't really need to constrain it to be an interface.
I'm not sure that the "helper" method is particularly useful though - if you compare:
var mock = Helper.CreateInstanceOfIMock<Foo>();
and
var mock = new Moq.Mock<Foo>();
or even (unless you have Mock<T> as another type somewhere) just a using Moq; directive and
var mock = new Mock<T>();
The latter seems just as readable and shorter... it makes sense if you're going to add more logic in your method, but if it's only ever going to call the constructor, I don't think I'd bother with it.
In Java I can easily write:
public interface MyInterface<T extends Object>
and then have a method which determine the T at runtime like:
public MyInterface<?> DetermineObjectAtRuntime()
But in C# where <?> is not available and I need to call the method with type; which means I need to know the type before hand.
Is it possible to return generics type from non-generic method?
If not, how can I work out the type to call such generic method if I have an object instance with that type?
For people who are not sure what this is for - I have a set of data structures which are using different enums as field indexers. All the messages extends from a common generic interface with that enum as type variable. Now I need to work out a method which deserialize all different types of messages from a byte[] array.
In C#, which does not have type erasure, there are several ways to work around not knowing a type argument at compile-time:
Non-generic subset: If it happens to be the case that the methods of MyInterface<T> that you need don't involve T, then you can extract that portion of the interface into a base interface and return the base interface instead.
Pro: No runtime type shenanigans.
Con: Modifies the type (moving methods to a new base interface), breaking binary compatibility.
Type checking wrapper: Make a RuntimeTypeCheckedMyInterface<T> class that implements MyInterface<object> by delegating to a MyInterface<T> after type checking. Have the method return a MyInterface<object>, created by wrapping the MyInterface<whatever> inside a RuntimeTypeCheckedMyInterface.
Pro: Works with any existing interface type, without modifying it.
Con: Introduces "does T=object really mean object, or does it mean unknown type"? ambiguity.
Manual type erasure: Make a variant of MyInterface<T> that doesn't have a T like MyInterfaceOfUnknownType. Make MyInterface<T> inherit from MyInterfaceOfUnknownType. Have your method return MyInterfaceOfUnknownType.
Pro: Acts basically identical to Java, with MyInterfaceOfUnknownType = MyInterface<?>.
Con: Pollutes MyInterface<T> with non-generic methods. When the methods differ only by return type you have to disambiguate with a name change. Modifies the type (breaking source and binary compatibility).
Screw the types: Have the method return object or dynamic. Cast conditionally and appropriately.
Pro: Initially easy to do.
Con: Harder to maintain.
"But in C# where '< ? >' is not available and I need to call the method with type; which means I need to know the type before hand."
You can use dynamic instead of <T> for example:
dynamic Foo (dynamic Input) {return Input;}
The compiler determines the type at runtime.
In C#, you can have generic methods:
class Foo<X>
{
public T DoSomethingFunky<T>( ... )
{
...
}
}
But there's no way to have a wildcard type — a big fail in C#. It would be very useful in a lot of situations where you that it is a Widget<T> but you don't care about the particulars of T.
For instance, WCF throws FaultException<T>, where the various flavors of T are service specific. There's no way to catch something like FaultException<*> without simply catching the base Exception class and using reflection to inspect the caught exception to see if it's an interesting T. This prevents handling service faults in a generic way.
I believe the reason is that a concrete generic class (Widget<int>) are not really subtypes of the generic class (Widget<T>) it "inherits" from. The generic class is simply used as a template to compile a new specific class.
The one thing you could do, is have your generic template (Widget<T>) inherit from a non-generic base class (Widget) and have your method return that:
class AbstractWidget { ... }
class Widget<T> : AbstractWidget { ... }
.
.
.
public Widget GetGeneric Widget()
{
/* flavor determinated at runtime */
}
It's incumbent upon the caller to decide what to do with its Widget.
Another way is to add an extension
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static T As<T>(this object obj)
{
return (T)obj;
}
}
the above will provide you a .As() method
i understand what they are, I'm just wondering when is the best time to use them.
My first thought was - when we are building a (static) utility class which should perform certain operations on different data types.
Ergo, it is a good practice to use generic methods to avoid numerous overloads of a certain method? Please comment on this.
I have a small example class. It's just for the sake of an example.
public static class Math<T> where T : operator +, operator -
{
public static T Add(T a1, T a2)
{
return a1+a2;
}
public static T Subtract(T a1, T a2)
{
return a1 - a2;
}
}
Would this be a good usage of generic classes and methods, e.g I wish to add and subtract ints, doubles.. etc.. with the minimum amount of code ?
Why won't this compile? I've tried this as well as modifying the class signature:
public static class Math<T> where T : struct
I understand that I must specify whether the Type parameter is of reference or of value type.
I did that by specifying that T must be constrained as a value type, so why am I still getting error that the operator + and/or - cannot be applied to T (which should specifically be a value type)
No this wouldn't be a good use. Generics are to provide type-safe data structures without knowing the type. Generic constraints allow you to specify some semantics about the type, such as implementing an interface, having a default constructor, or being a class or struct.
Please see these MSDN articles:
An Introduction to C# Generics
Constraints on Type Parameters
.
It won't compile because the operator + parts are not valid constraints.
Being a value type does not infer operators such as + or -, it only infers value-type semantics (inherits object, is a value type, cannot be null, has a default constructor).
Generic Constraints
Generic constraints help the compiler give you more from your T. An unconstrained generic can only be proven to be object, so you only get access to object members on the argument.
If you state: public void Foo<T>() where T : new()
The compiler can prove that your type has a default public parameterless constructor. This is the purpose of constraints, it forces the types that can be party to the generic to conform to a contract.
There are various constraints, but as you have found there are some limitations. Interestingly, there are limitations in C# that do not exist in IL, as explored by Jon Skeet in his Unconstrained Melody library that exposes enum constraints to C#.
As written by others the operator+ isn't a valid constraint. If what you want is to make some generic math, you can use something like:
public static class Add<T>
{
public static readonly Func<T, T, T> Do;
static Add()
{
var par1 = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
var par2 = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));
var add = Expression.Add(par1, par2);
Do = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, T, T>>(add, par1, par2).Compile();
}
}
public static class Math<T>
{
public static T Add(T a1, T a2)
{
return Add<T>.Do(a1, a2);
}
This will create and compile an Expression that does the operation and then cache it in a generic static class.
Sadly with this method you lose the static checking of you compiler (you could do something like:
object res = Math<object>.Add(new object(), new object());
and it would compile correctly. At runtime it would explode.)
In general you can't make a constraint asking for a specific method (static or non-static) or a specific property to be present (operators are like static methods) (with a single exception: the new() constraint that asks for a public parameterless constructor). What you can ask is for an interface to be implemented, or for a base class to be present, or for the generic parameter to be a class or a struct (where the two must be meant as "reference type" and "value type", and not simply as class and struct). Sadly there are no interfaces IAddable, ISubtractable, ... and even if you built them, int, double... wouldn't implement them, and to make it worse, in .NET you can't have generic specializations (a trick of C++ where you define a generic Math<T> and then you define special "cases" explicitly, like Math<int>, Math<double> and so on)
The obvious use case for generic classes is data structures which can then store any type of data without having to treat it all as instances of object. You probably use these all the time - IList<T>, IDictionary<K, V> etc. It lets you store things where you don't know the type when you're writing the structure while retaining type safety. The trick being that you also don't know anything about the type you're storing so you can't do much with it.
Thus generic constraints, which let you say something is a reference type or a value type, or has a parameterless constructor, or implements an interface. These come in useful when you're writing a generic class which has to do something with instances of the parameterised type. Might seem useless - why not just use an interface type as the parameter type and avoid generics altogether? Because generic constraints can force a parameter to conform to more than one interface - something you can't specify in a normal parameter type. Thus you can write a function:
public static void Frobnicate<T>(T thing)
where T : IList<int>, IDisposable
{
// ...
}
You can also stick a single base class name in there too. This is far, far more flexible than specifying concrete types. Sure you could create an interface which inherits from IList<int> and IDisposable but you can't retrofit all disposable lists of integers that might be out there to implement it.
You could also do it at runtime using reflection to inspect things, but this kind of thing is far better handled by the compiler, IMO.
I've a generic method with a constraint like below:
private string GetResult<T>(T myObject) where T : IDoSomething<T>
{
......
}
Now, the problem is that the IDoSomething is implemented by the classes and not by classes interface and moreover the objects are always created using the interface as their type and not the class like:
IClassA myObject = new ClassA();
So, whenever the generic method is called, a cast must be made on myObject to forward it as a parameter.
Is there a way to avoid the cast and make the code work? (except the option of inheriting IDoSomething in IClassA)
No, I don't think you can avoid the cast, since the interface IClassA is not related in any way to IDoSomething.
Just the fact that some class that implements one interface also happens to implement another interface doesn't make the two interfaces compatible.
Even the assignment of a IClassA object back to a ClassA variable requires a explicit cast.
No, there's no way to avoid the cast in the way that you're doing it.
If you don't want IDoSomething<T> and IClassA to be related by extension and you don't want to use a variable typed with the concrete class, then there isn't any information for the compiler to use to infer that your object implements the right interface for the method without using a cast.
It depends. Are you just trying to get T? In that case, you could do:
private static string GetResult<T>(IDoSomething<T> myObject) {}
Then T will be inferred correctly from the interface (since IClassFoo will always inherit from it) and you won't have to cast.
If you want to pass it as T, though AND not have to cast it, then you're out of luck, there's not a relationship you can exploit.
Here is my code
public interface ITranslator<E, R>
{
E ToEntity<T>(R record);
}
class Gens : ITranslator<string, int>
{
#region ITranslator<string,int> Members
public string ToEntity<MyOtherClass>(int record)
{
return record.ToString();
}
#endregion
}
When I compile this, I get an error Type parameter declaration must be an identifier not a type
Why is that I cannot have ToEntity<MyOtherClass> but can only have ToEntity<T> ??
Edit: what is MyOtherClass doing ? I am converting between entities(POCOs equivalent of Entity framework) and record(Object returned by the framework) for multiple tables/classes. So I would want to use this to do my class specific conversion
Your interface has a generic ToEntity<T> method that you've made non-generic in your implementation class Gens as ToEntity<MyOtherClass>. (A generic method could take any type parameter, possibly given certain constraints on T. Your Gens class is trying to provide a definition for ToEntity only for the type parameter MyOtherClass, which defeats the purpose of generics.)
In your code example, it's unclear how your Gens class is trying to use the MyOtherClass type; it's certainly not involved in the logic of ToEntity. We'd need more information to be able to guide you further.
To illustrate, here's what your current definition of the ITranslator<E, R> interface offers, in plain English:
"I provide a mechanism to translate
any record of type R into an entity
of type E, this mechanism being
dependent upon any user-specified type
T."
Your Gens class, on the other hand, the way it's currently designed, "implements" the above interface like so:
"I can translate integers to strings.
I provide the illusion of allowing
the user to specify a type to control
how this translation is performed, but
in fact there is no choice of type.
The MyOtherClass class is involved
somehow; that's all I can say."
From these two descriptions, it's clear that the Gens class is not really doing what the ITranslator<E, R> interface guarantees. Namely, it is not willing to accept a user-specified type for its ToEntity method. That's why this code won't compile for you.
You must declare a constraint on a generic type.
public string ToEntity<T>(int record) where T : MyOtherClass
That compiles OK for me in LINQpad. Maybe you have a type named E, R, or T somewhere?
Ahh I see what you're trying to do... you have MyOtherClass defined as a class somewhere yet you're trying to use it as a type argument in ToEntity. How exactly do you want MyOtherClass involved in ToEntity?