We Keep Coding

Why does this function call resolve to the base class method, casting the int to a double?

Why does this program print "abc from B" instead of "abc from A"? My intuition says that it should resolve the method to the more specific type parameter (which is how I've always used overloading).
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int i = 5;
B b = new B();
b.Method1(i);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class A
{
public void Method1(int q)
{
Console.WriteLine("abc from A");
}
}
class B : A
{
public void Method1(double p)
{
Console.WriteLine("abc from B");
}
}

Overload resolution doesn't work across types.
This is due to one crucial step in determining the set of candidate methods for overload resolution, as stated in the language spec:
The set of candidate methods is reduced to contain only methods from the most derived types: For each method C.F in the set, where C is the type in which the method F is declared, all methods declared in a base type of C are removed from the set.
Basically, the A.Method1 isn't even considered for overload resolution.
There are a few other steps to this, but the spec nicely summarises the process:
To locate the particular method invoked by a method invocation, start with the type indicated by the method invocation and proceed up the inheritance chain until at least one applicable, accessible, non-override method declaration is found. Then perform type inference and overload resolution on the set of applicable, accessible, non-override methods declared in that type and invoke the method thus selected.
Interestingly, your intuition that A.Method1 should be called because there is an identity conversion from int to int is how it works in Java :)

Because you called it from a variable of the B type. If you cast b as an A, you'd get the first result. See it here:
https://dotnetfiddle.net/TAYfJX
If you want it to do overloading based on argument type, put both versions of the method in the same type.

Overriding and calling same method in Base class constructor in C#

My fret is: In the code presented below, it should display A then B. But it displays B then B. Why is it so?
What I feel is, constructor of A gets executed first when creating object of B. In that case, the method in B would not be hitted right? So it should be A.Display() and should result A. Also, then a.Display() should return B because we have override.
So I expect A then B. Because its not overloading but overriding. I know the definition of these things, I expect to understand the reason for this behavior and how it works internally as I am not convinced with BB but AB.
Code
class A
{
public A()
{
this.Display();
}
public virtual void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
}
class B :A
{
public override void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
class C
{
static void Main()
{
A a = new B();
a.Display();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Outputs
1) On override of Display method in the derived class yields the following:
A a = new A(); // ---> AA
B a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
A a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
2) using the NEW keyword in the Display method in derived class yields the following:
B a = new B(); // ---> AB // I Expect AA here.
A a = new B(); // ---> AA
A a = new A(); // ---> AA
3) More interesting findings are:
When I use base.Display() in the derived constructor with override of the base method in derived class, it gives me BAB
I do not see any logic at least in this. because, it should give BBB

What I feel is, constructor of A gets executed first when creating object of B.
Correct.
In that case, the method in B would not be hit right?
This is incorrect.
In similar code in C++ you would be correct. In C++ there is a rule that virtual function dispatch tables are built as the object is being constructed. That is, when the "A" constructor is entered, the vtable is filled in with the methods in "A". When control goes to the "B" ctor, the vtable is then filled in with the methods of B.
This is not the case in C#. In C# the vtable is filled in the moment the object comes out of the memory allocator, before either ctor is executed, and it does not change after that. The vtable slot for the method always contains the most derived method.
Therefore calling a virtual method in a ctor as you are doing here is a very bad idea. A virtual method can be called where the implementation is on a class whose ctor has not run yet! It might therefore depend on state that has not yet been initialized.
Note that field initializers run before all ctor bodies, so fortunately an override on a more derived class will always run after the field initializers of the overriding class.
The moral of the story is: simply don't do that. Don't ever call a virtual method in a ctor. In C++ you might get a different method than you expect, and in C# you might get a method that uses state that is not initialized. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Why we shouldn't call virtual methods inside ctor? Is it because we get only the (latest derived) results only) always in the vtable?
Yes. Let me illustrate with an example:
class Bravo
{
public virtual void M()
{
Console.WriteLine("Bravo!");
}
public Bravo()
{
M(); // Dangerous!
}
}
class Delta : Bravo:
{
DateTime creation;
public override void M()
{
Console.WriteLine(creation);
}
public Delta()
{
creation = DateTime.Now;
}
}
OK, so the expected behavior of this program is that when M is called on any Delta, it will print out the time that the instance was created. But the order of events on new Delta() is:
Bravo ctor runs
Bravo ctor calls this.M
M is virtual and this is of runtime type Delta so Delta.M runs
Delta.M prints out the uninitialized field, which is set to the default time, not the current time.
M returns
Bravo ctor returns
Delta ctor sets the field
Now do you see what I mean when I say that the overriding method might rely on state that is not initialized yet? In any other usage of M, this would be fine because the Delta ctor would already be finished. But here M is called before the Delta ctor even starts!

You create an instance of an object B. It uses the code of the constructor that is defined on class A as you did not override it in B. But the instance is still B, so other methods called in the constructor are the ones defined in B, not A. Hence you see the result of Display() defined in class B.
Update based on update of the question
I'll try to explain the "weird" results you're getting.
When overriding:
B a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
A a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
This is covered above. When you override a method on a child class, this method is used if you're using an instance of the child class. This is a basic rule that the methods used are decided by the class of the instance of a variable, not by the class used to declare the variable.
When using new modifier for the method (hiding inherited method)
B a = new B(); // ---> AB // I Expect AA here.
Now there's two different behaviours here:
When the constructor is used, it's using the constructor in class A. As the inherited method is hidden in the child class, the constructor is using Display() method from class A and hence you see A printed.
When you later call Display() directly, the instance of the variable is B. For that reason, it uses the method defined on class B which prints B.

Initial statement
I'll start with the base code, I have adapted it to run in LINQPad (I did also change it to Write instead of WriteLine because I'll not preserve the new lines in the explanation anyway).
class A
{
public A()
{
this.Display();
}
public virtual void Display()
{
Console.Write("A"); //changed to Write
}
}
class B :A
{
public override void Display()
{
Console.Write("B"); //changed to Write
}
}
static void Main()
{
A a = new B();
a.Display();
}
The output is:
BB
In your initial question you said you were expecting:
AB
Whats happening here (as Szymon attempted to explain) is that you are creating an object of type B and the class B overrides the method Display of the class A. So whenever you call Display on that object it will be the method of the derived class (B), even from the constructor of A.
I will go over all the cases you mention. I want to encourage to read it carefully. Also, be open minded because this does not match what happens in certain other languages.
1) On override of Display method in the derived class
This is the case where you are overriding the method, ie:
public override void Display()
{
Console.Write("B"); //changed to Write
}
When you override, for all practical uses the method that will be used is the method of the derived class. Think of override as replace.
Case 1:
A a = new A(); // ---> AA
We are ok, with that.
Case 2:
B a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
As mentioned above, calling Display on the object will always be the method on the derived class. So, both calls to Display yield B.
Case 3:
A a = new B(); // ---> BB // I expect AB.
This is a variant of the same confusion. The object is clearly of type B, even if you have it in a variable of type A. Remember that in C# the type is a property of the of the object not of the variable. So, the result is the same as above.
Note: You can still use base.Display() to access the method that was replaced.
2) Using the NEW keyword in the Display method in derived class
This is the case where you are hiding the method, ie:
public new void Display()
{
Console.Write("B"); //changed to Write
}
When you hide the method, it means that the original method is still available. You can think of it as a different method (that happens to have the same name and signature). That is: the derived class is not replacing overriding that method.
Because of that, when you do a (virtual) call to the object where at compile time it was decided it was going to use the method of the base class... the method of the derived class is not taken into consideration (in practice, it acts as it weren't a virtual call).
Think of it like this: if you call the method using a varible of the base class... the code is not aware that there exists a derived class that hides the method and that that particular call may be executed with one of those object. Instead, it will use the method of the base class, regardless.
Case 1:
B a = new B(); // ---> AB // I Expect AA here.
You see, at compile time the call in the constructor was set to use the method of the base class. That one gives A. But since the variable is of type B the compiler is aware that the method was hidden for the second call.
Case 2:
A a = new B(); // ---> AA
Here, neither in the constructor nor in the second call it will use the new method. It is not aware of it.
Case 3:
A a = new A(); // ---> AA
And I think this one is clear.
3) Using base.Display()
This the variant of the code where you do this:
public new void Display()
{
base.Display();
Console.Write("B"); //changed to Write
}
base.Display() is gonna be the method in the base class (A), no matter what.
Further reading
You said you want to learn how this works internally.
You can go deeper by reading Microsoft's C# Spec on Virtual Methods
Then read Eric Lippert's Implementing the virtual method pattern in C# (part 1, part 2 and part 3)
You may also be interested:
Anders on virtual calls from constructors.
Eric Lippert's Why Do Initializers Run In The Opposite Order As Constructors? (part 1 and part 2)
Others explanations of Virtual Methods from the web:
What's the difference between override and new? (msdn.com)
C# Virtual (dotnetpearls.com)
Understanding virtual, override and new keyword in C# (dotnet-tricks.com)
Understanding C#: Using virtual and override (oreilly.com)

You may be confusing yourself by naming the class a while instantiating it as class B. If you are looking to call the virtual method you could use the base keyword. The following code writes A B
class A
{
public A()
{
//this.Display();
}
public virtual void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
}
class B : A
{
public override void Display()
{
base.Display();
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
class C
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new B();
a.Display();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Also note you can see why your code is displaying B B by setting a breakpoint at the beginning and then walking through your code execution line-by-line (F11).

What I understood is , in case of virtual method, same method slot is shared among the parent and child object.
If so, then I think when an object virtual method is called , by somehow compiler updates the method slot with appropriate method address so that exact method is jitted and executed In c#.

What makes a name of a method equivalent to an action delegate?

I was just experimenting and ended up with the following snippet:
public static class Flow {
public static void Sequence(params Action[] steps) {
foreach (var step in steps)
step();
}
}
void Main() {
Flow.Sequence(() => F1(), () => F2());
Flow.Sequence(F1, F2); // <-- what makes this equiv to the line above?
}
void F1() { }
void F2() { }
I didn't realize that a method name alone was the same as an Action.
What is making this so?

In C#, delegates are nothing more than method pointers. They can point to existing methods in a class, or independent anonymous delegate objects altogether.
This paragraph from the above link should explain what's happening in your code:
Any method that matches the delegate's signature, which consists of the return type and parameters, can be assigned to the delegate. This makes is possible to programmatically change method calls, and also plug new code into existing classes. As long as you know the delegate's signature, you can assign your own delegated method.
That is, when resolving delegate types, what's considered are their signatures, rather than their names.
In your case, your F1() and F2() methods, taking no parameters and returning nothing, have matching signatures with the parameterless Action delegate:
public delegate void Action();
Therefore, they're implicitly convertible to Action.
If you try to pass a method with a different return type or at least one parameter, you'll get a compile-time error as it won't correspond to Action's signature.

Basically, this is kind of what is happening in the background:
void Main()
{   
Flow.Sequence(new Action(delegate(){ F1(); }), new Action(delegate(){ F2(); }));   
Flow.Sequence(new Action(F1), new Action(F2));
}
They're not EXACTLY equivalent, but they're very close. They would render the same results at run-time, the only difference being that the arguments in the first Sequence invocation would be an Action which invokes an anonymous method which then invokes the static methods F1 and F2; the second Sequence invocation would be an Action which invokes the static methods F1 and F2.
I hope this helps.

The compiler uses an implicit conversion from a method group to a delegate of compatible type (in this case a void returning method taking no arguments), the method names here are irrelevent.

C# Delegate under the hood question

I was doing some digging around into delegate variance after reading the following question in SO : Delegate.CreateDelegate() and generics: Error binding to target method
I found a very nice bit of code from Barry kelly at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8184237816669520763&postID=2109708553230166434
Here it is (in a sugared-up form :-)
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication4
{
internal class Base
{
}
internal class Derived : Base
{
}
internal delegate void baseClassDelegate(Base b);
internal delegate void derivedClassDelegate(Derived d);
internal class App
{
private static void Foo1(Base b)
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo 1");
}
private static void Foo2(Derived b)
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo 2");
}
private static T CastDelegate<T>(Delegate src)
where T : class
{
return (T) (object) Delegate.CreateDelegate(
typeof (T),
src.Target,
src.Method,
true); // throw on fail
}
private static void Main()
{
baseClassDelegate a = Foo1; // works fine
derivedClassDelegate b = Foo2; // works fine
b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though
b(new Derived());
b = CastDelegate<derivedClassDelegate>(a); // the hard way, avoids indirection
b(new Derived());
}
}
}
I understand all of it except this one (what looks very simple) line.
b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though
Can anyone tell me:
how it is possible to call invoke without passing the param required by the static function.
When is going on under the hood when you assign the return value from calling invoke
What does Barry mean by extra indirection (in his comment)

He isn't calling Invoke (note the lack of ()), he's using implicit delegate creation to set b equal to a new derivedClassDelegate instance that points to the Invoke method of a. The additional indirection is that when b is invoked, it calls a.Invoke(new Derived()) rather than just a(new Derived()).
To make what's actually happening more explicit:
baseClassDelegate a = Foo1; // works fine
derivedClassDelegate b = Foo2; // works fine
b = new derivedClassDelegate(a.Invoke); // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though
b(new Derived());
b = CastDelegate<derivedClassDelegate>(a); // the hard way, avoids indirection
b(new Derived());
The first call to b results in a chain like this (parameters eliminated for simplicity):
b() -> a.Invoke() -> Foo1()
The second call to b results in this:
b() -> Foo1()
However
This is only needed if you need a delegate of one signature to invoke a delegate of another (less restrictive) signature. In his example, you could just set b = Foo1 and it would compile, but that wouldn't illustrate the point.

C# virtual static method

Why is static virtual impossible? Is C# dependent or just don't have any sense in the OO world?
I know the concept has already been underlined but I did not find a simple answer to the previous question.

virtual means the method called will be chosen at run-time, depending on the dynamic type of the object. static means no object is necessary to call the method.
How do you propose to do both in the same method?

Eric Lippert has a blog post about this, and as usual with his posts, he covers the subject in great depth:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/ericlippert/calling-static-methods-on-type-parameters-is-illegal-part-one
“virtual” and “static” are opposites! “virtual” means “determine the method to be called based on run time type information”, and “static” means “determine the method to be called solely based on compile time static analysis”

The contradiction between "static" and "virtual" is only a C# problem. If "static" were replaced by "class level", like in many other languages, no one would be blindfolded.
Too bad the choice of words made C# crippled in this respect. It is still possible to call the Type.InvokeMember method to simulate a call to a class level, virtual method. You just have to pass the method name as a string. No compile time check, no strong typing and no control that subclasses implement the method.
Some Delphi beauty:
type
TFormClass = class of TForm;
var
formClass: TFormClass;
myForm: TForm;
begin
...
formClass = GetAnyFormClassYouWouldLike;
myForm = formClass.Create(nil);
myForm.Show;
end

Guys who say that there is no sense in static virtual methods - if you don't understand how this could be possible, it does not mean that it is impossible. There are languages that allow this!! Look at Delphi, for example.

I'm going to be the one who naysays. What you are describing is not technically part of the language. Sorry. But it is possible to simulate it within the language.
Let's consider what you're asking for - you want a collection of methods that aren't attached to any particular object that can all be easily callable and replaceable at run time or compile time.
To me that sounds like what you really want is a singleton object with delegated methods.
Let's put together an example:
public interface ICurrencyWriter {
string Write(int i);
string Write(float f);
}
public class DelegatedCurrencyWriter : ICurrencyWriter {
public DelegatedCurrencyWriter()
{
IntWriter = i => i.ToString();
FloatWriter = f => f.ToString();
}
public string Write(int i) { return IntWriter(i); }
public string Write(float f) { return FloatWriter(f); }
public Func<int, string> IntWriter { get; set; }
public Func<float, string> FloatWriter { get; set; }
}
public class SingletonCurrencyWriter {
public static DelegatedCurrencyWriter Writer {
get {
if (_writer == null)
_writer = new DelegatedCurrencyWriter();
return _writer;
}
}
}
in use:
Console.WriteLine(SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.Write(400.0f); // 400.0
SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.FloatWriter = f => String.Format("{0} bucks and {1} little pennies.", (int)f, (int)(f * 100));
Console.WriteLine(SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.Write(400.0f); // 400 bucks and 0 little pennies
Given all this, we now have a singleton class that writes out currency values and I can change the behavior of it. I've basically defined the behavior convention at compile time and can now change the behavior at either compile time (in the constructor) or run time, which is, I believe the effect you're trying to get. If you want inheritance of behavior, you can do that to by implementing back chaining (ie, have the new method call the previous one).
That said, I don't especially recommend the example code above. For one, it isn't thread safe and there really isn't a lot in place to keep life sane. Global dependence on this kind of structure means global instability. This is one of the many ways that changeable behavior was implemented in the dim dark days of C: structs of function pointers, and in this case a single global struct.

Yes it is possible.
The most wanted use case for that is to have factories which can be "overriden"
In order to do this, you will have to rely on generic type parameters using the F-bounded polymorphism.
Example 1
Let's take a factory example:
class A: { public static A Create(int number) { return ... ;} }
class B: A { /* How to override the static Create method to return B? */}
You also want createB to be accessible and returning B objects in the B class. Or you might like A's static functions to be a library that should be extensible by B. Solution:
class A<T> where T: A<T> { public static T Create(int number) { return ...; } }
class B: A<B> { /* no create function */ }
B theb = B.Create(2); // Perfectly fine.
A thea = A.Create(0); // Here as well
Example 2 (advanced):
Let's define a static function to multiply matrices of values.
public abstract class Value<T> where T : Value<T> {
//This method is static but by subclassing T we can use virtual methods.
public static Matrix<T> MultiplyMatrix(Matrix<T> m1, Matrix<T> m2) {
return // Code to multiply two matrices using add and multiply;
}
public abstract T multiply(T other);
public abstract T add(T other);
public abstract T opposed();
public T minus(T other) {
return this.add(other.opposed());
}
}
// Abstract override
public abstract class Number<T> : Value<T> where T: Number<T> {
protected double real;
/// Note: The use of MultiplyMatrix returns a Matrix of Number here.
public Matrix<T> timesVector(List<T> vector) {
return MultiplyMatrix(new Matrix<T>() {this as T}, new Matrix<T>(vector));
}
}
public class ComplexNumber : Number<ComplexNumber> {
protected double imag;
/// Note: The use of MultiplyMatrix returns a Matrix of ComplexNumber here.
}
Now you can also use the static MultiplyMatrix method to return a matrix of complex numbers directly from ComplexNumber
Matrix<ComplexNumber> result = ComplexNumber.MultiplyMatrix(matrix1, matrix2);

While technically it's not possible to define a static virtual method, for all the reasons already pointed out here, you can functionally accomplish what I think you're trying using C# extension methods.
From Microsoft Docs:
Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type.
Check out Extension Methods (C# Programming Guide) for more details.

In .NET, virtual method dispatch is (roughly) done by looking at the actual type of an object when the method is called at runtime, and finding the most overriding method from the class's vtable. When calling on a static class, there is no object instance to check, and so no vtable to do the lookup on.

To summarize all the options presented:
This is not a part of C# because in it, static means "not bound to anything at runtime" as it has ever since C (and maybe earlier). static entities are bound to the declaring type (thus are able to access its other static entities), but only at compile time.
This is possible in other languages where a static equivalent (if needed at all) means "bound to a type object at runtime" instead. Examples include Delphi, Python, PHP.
This can be emulated in a number of ways which can be classified as:
Use runtime binding
Static methods with a singleton object or lookalike
Virtual method that returns the same for all instances
Redefined in a derived type to return a different result (constant or derived from static members of the redefining type)
Retrieves the type object from the instance
Use compile-time binding
Use a template that modifies the code for each derived type to access the same-named entities of that type, e.g. with the CRTP

The 2022+ answer, if you are running .Net 7 or above, is that now static virtual members is now supported in interfaces. Technically it's static abstract instead of "static virtual" but the effect is that same. Standard static methods signatures can be defined in an interface and implemented statically.
Here are a few examples on the usage and syntax in .Net 7