is it possible to define an extension method that at the same time is an operator?
I want for a fixed class add the possibility to use a known operator that actually can't be applied.
For this particular case i want to do this:
somestring++; //i really know that this string contains a numeric value
And i don't want to spread types conversions for all the code.
I know that i could create wrapper class over an string and define that operator but i want to know if this kind of thing is possible to avoid search-and-replace every string declaration with MySpecialString.
Edited: as most have say string is sealed, so derivation isn't possible, so i modify "derived" to "wrapper", my mistake.
That is not possible in C#, but why not a standard extension method?
public static class StringExtensions {
public static string Increment(this string s) {
....
}
}
I think somestring.Increment() is even more readable, as you're not confusing people who really dont expect to see ++ applied to a string.
A clear example of where this would be useful is to be able to extend the TimeSpan class to include * and / operators.
This is what would ideally work...
public static class TimeSpanHelper
{
public static TimeSpan operator *(TimeSpan span, double factor)
{
return TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(span.TotalMilliseconds * factor);
}
public static TimeSpan operator *(double factor, TimeSpan span) // * is commutative
{
return TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(span.TotalMilliseconds * factor);
}
public static TimeSpan operator /(TimeSpan span, double sections)
{
return TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(span.TotalMilliseconds / factor);
}
public static double operator /(TimeSpan span, TimeSpan period)
{
return span.TotalMilliseconds / period.TotalMilliseconds);
}
}
No, it is not possible to do from outside of the class. ++ operator should be defined inside class which is being incremented. You can either create your own class which will be convertible from string and will have ++ overload or you can forget about this idea and use regular methods.
No, you can't have an extension method which is also an operator. Extension methods can only be declared in static classes, which can't have instances and according to the C# spec,
User-defined operator declarations always require at least one of the parameters to be of the class or struct type that contains the operator declaration. [7.3.2]
Therefore, it is impossible for an extension method to also be an overloaded operator.
Additionally, you can't override System.String since it is a sealed class.
The string class is sealed in C#, so creating a string-derived class actually isn't possible.
That being said, an extension method will of course work just fine (as will a standard static method in a helper class) but it won't be an operator, just ordinarily-named method.
Currently this is not supported because Extension methods are defined in separate static class and static classes cannot have operator overloading definitions.
This is all true, but it would be nice for M$ to add this functionality in the future. Sometimes the framework is just missing things and an extension can help plug the gap (or fix the issue) this can sometimes be operators.
An example. To compare IP Addresses, you must use the Equals method to directly compare (of course parts of the struct could also be compared as could the address bytes individually - but that's another story). However, using the == operator always returns false at the object level (i.e. without converting them to strings etc). How hard is it to put the Equals method call inside the == operator call (that's rhetorical), but we can't do it. This is inconsistant and a place for bugs to creep in (note it does not fail, just always equates to false - whereas Equals does not).
I would argue that you should use a wrapper class, even if you could write an extension operator.
//i really know that this string contains a numeric value
is exactly the sort of situation that type-safety was invented for.
Another way of looking at it is that by writing that operator, you have broken many other functions and operators that work with the string class, since they don't necessarily preserve the property of containing a numeric value. By using a wrapper class, not a derived class, you only re-implement those features of string that make sense for numeric strings.
i was in a very similar situation as you described: i needed to increase the text (containing a numeric value for sure) in a Windows Forms textbox.
I understand your need as you described
somestring++; //i really know that this string contains a numeric value
My soultion is something like that which i believe is close to your description
somestring = (incrementable)somestring + 1
All i needed to do was
creating class called incrementable
defining an explicit operator in it (to aid converting string to incrementable )
defining an implicit operator in it (to aid converting incrementable back to string )
operator for + (plus sign)
Here's how my class looks in complete
public class incrementable
{
public string s; // For storing string value that holds the number
public incrementable(string _s)
{
s = _s;
}
public static explicit operator incrementable(string tmp)
{
return new incrementable(tmp);
}
public static implicit operator string(incrementable tmp)
{
return tmp.s;
}
public static incrementable operator +(incrementable str, int inc) // This will work flawlessly like `somestring = (incrementable)somestring + 1`
=> new incrementable((Convert.ToInt32(str.s) + inc).ToString());
public static incrementable operator ++(incrementable str) // Unfortunately won't work, see below
=> new incrementable((Convert.ToInt32(str.s) + 1).ToString());
}
Unfortunately i just couldn't get managed to improve my class by the usage of unary ++ operator. The reason against of usage of implicit conversion like ((incrementable)somestring)++ is that it is going to result in error saying The operand of an increment or decrement operator must be a variable, property or indexer hence can not be result of that casting.
Anyway, hope this helps!
As shown in the other answers, it cannot be done directly. But what if you need it, say you want to improve StringBuilder like
void Main()
{
var log = (StringBuilder)"Hello ";
log += "World!";
log += "\nThis example shows how to extend StringBuilder";
log.ToString().Dump();
}
how can you achieve this (i.e. use + operator instead of sb.Append(str);) ?
Answer:
In this case, you can't do it directly, but what you can do is:
Run it in DotNetFiddle
void Main()
{
var log = (StrBuilder)"Hello "; // same as: "Hello ".ToStrBuilder();
log += "World!";
log += "\nThis example shows how to extend StringBuilder";
log.ToString().Dump();
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static StrBuilder ToStrBuilder(this string str)
{
return new StrBuilder(str);
}
}
public class StrBuilder
{
private StringBuilder sb;
public StrBuilder()
{
sb = new StringBuilder();
}
public StrBuilder(string strB)
{
sb = new StringBuilder(strB);
}
public static implicit operator StrBuilder(string self)
{
return new StrBuilder(self);
}
public static StrBuilder operator +(StrBuilder sbA, string strB)
{
return sbA.Append(strB);
}
public StrBuilder Append(string strB)
{
sb.Append(strB);
return this;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return sb.ToString();
}
}
Note: You can't inherit from StringBuilder because it is a sealed class, but you can write a class that "boxes" a StringBuilder - which is, what is done here (thanks to IanNorton's answer regarding implicit conversion).
Related
In object-oriented programming, everything is supposed to be an object. Starting from this postula, is it possible to add methods and fields to a literal object, such as a number, a string, a Boolean value or a character?
I noticed that in C#, we can use some methods and fields of the "Integer" class from a mathematical expression:
var a = (2 + 2).ToString();
I imagine that it is more syntactic sugar to access the "Integer" class and a method actually related to the mathematical expression (and / or its value).
But is it possible in C# to define one of the methods and fields to a literal object alone? Such as these examples:
"Hello, world!".print();
var foo = 9.increment();
This would probably be useless, but the language being object-oriented, this should be feasible. If this is not possible in C#, how could we do this with the object-oriented paradigm?
Sure, you can implement an extension method and have the desired syntax (however, Int32 class will not be changed):
public static class IntExtensions {
public static int increment(this int value) {
return value + 1;
}
}
...
// Syntax sugar: the actual call is "int foo = IntExtensions.increment(9);"
var foo = 9.increment();
In the current C# version (7.2) we can't add extension properties, extension events etc. These options can appear in C# 8.0 (Extension everything, https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/mt829270.aspx):
You don't add methods to a given instance of an object, you add methods to a type. Additionally, the language doesn't allow you to define what methods a string (or other type of) literal has, it defines what methods all strings have, of which string literals act just like any non-literal strings, and have exactly the same methods.
Note that (2 + 2) is not an instance of the "Integer" class, it will resolve to an instance of the System.Int32 struct. The difference isn't relevant to this behavior, but it's relevant to lots of others.
"Hello, world!".print();
This string is an instance of the String Class in C# which inherits from the Object class. So you have to create the print() method in the String Class in order to make this work.
You can use extension methods to achieve this, which must be static methods defined in a static class. In you example above, you could do the following:
public static class Extensions
{
public static int increment(this int num)
{
return ++num;
}
}
I've got somebody's F# library with a type in it:
module HisModule
type hisType {
a : float;
b : float;
c : float;
}
I'm using it in C#, and I would like to add a "ToString()" method to it, in order to facilitate debugging.
But the following doesn't seem to work:
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static string ToString(this HisModule.hisType h)
{
return String.Format("a={0},b={1},c={2}", h.a, h.b, h.c);
}
}
....
var h = new hisType();
Console.WriteLine(h.ToString()); // prints "HisModule+hisType"
Any ideas why not?
As others have pointed out, the ToString on object will always be a better match than your extension method. You should probably change the signature of your extension method; changing the name is probably the right way to go.
Moreover: you said that the purpose of this thing was to facilitate debugging. Overriding ToString might be the wrong thing to do there; ToString might be used for something other than debugging. I would be inclined to make my own specially-named method whose name clearly reflects the purpose of the method.
If you are creating a new type and want to have special display behaviour in the debugger, the easiest thing to do is to use the Debugger Display Attributes.
If you want to get really fancy to display a complex data structure in an interesting way, consider writing a Debugger Visualizer.
The answer to your question is "yes". Your sample does not succeed, however, because method resolution succeeds when it finds object.ToString(), so the compiler never looks for extension methods. Try it with a different name:
public static class MyExtensions
{
public static string Foo(this HisModule.hisType h)
{
return String.Format("a={0},b={1},c={2}", h.a, h.b, h.c);
}
}
....
var h = new hisType();
Console.WriteLine(h.Foo());
I think you can not do that, as ToString() is always there, in any object of CLR world.
Check out Eric Lippert answer.
You could create a wrapper type (with an implicit conversion) that overrides ToString.
class MyType {
private readonly hisType _hisType;
private MyType(hisType hisType) {
_hisType = hisType;
}
public static implicit operator MyType(hisType hisType) {
return new MyType(hisType);
}
public override string ToString() {
return String.Format("a={0},b={1},c={2}", _hisType.a, _hisType.b, _hisType.c);
}
}
hisType y;
MyType x = y;
I wrote a Generic Class:
public class Interval<T> where T : IComparable // for checking that Start < End
{
public T Start { get; set; }
public T End { get; set; }
...
}
And I use this class with DateTime, int, etc.
I need a Duration property that returns a duration like:
public object Duration
{
get
{
return End - Start;
}
}
But when this property is included in my class, the compiler raises a logical error on the - operator.
What can I do to achieve this goal normally, or should I ignore it?
Try something like this:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Tuple<int, bool> value = JustAMethod<int>(5, 3);
if (value.Item2)
{
Console.WriteLine(value.Item1);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Can't substract.");
}
}
public static Tuple<T, bool> JustAMethod<T>(T arg1, T arg2)
{
dynamic dArg1 = (dynamic)arg1;
dynamic dArg2 = (dynamic)arg2;
dynamic ret;
try
{
ret = dArg1 - dArg2;
return new Tuple<T, bool>(ret, true);
}
catch
{
return new Tuple<T, bool>(default(T), false);
}
}
How this works: first, you convert the arguments to a dynamic type, and you can easily use operators on the dynamic type. If you wouldn't be able to use the operators, then an exception would be thrown at runtime. So, if you try to substract two objects that you actually can't substract, we'll catch the exception and return false as the second item in the Tuple.
This is not possible with generics in C# - at least not directly. It has been a highly requested feature on Connect for a long time.
You will need to make your types implement some interface that has a member that can be used, and constrain the class to that, or use one of the workarounds listed in the Connect bug (none of which are perfect), or a separate approach like MiscUtil's generic operators.
this work
public object Duration
{
get
{
return (dynamic)End - (dynamic)Start;
}
}
but no check, and slow
Check Jon Skeet's Misc Util https://jonskeet.uk/csharp/miscutil/
And here the generic operators by Marc Gravell: https://jonskeet.uk/csharp/miscutil/usage/genericoperators.html
The compiler does this so you don't write buggy code, its the whole point of generics and the concept of type safe programming.
If you need a method that subtracts dates write one that accepts a date, and if you need another one for integers, guess what you should write one for integers. Generics are not there so that the compiler can assume responsibility for any type. Think about it what if I wanted the difference between two objects, how would I do that with your generic method?
Or as #Reed Copsey mentioned you can constrain a class to it.
While this may seem like a major restriction, you need to remember that generics are generic. Of course, the System.Int32 type can work just fine with the binary operators of C#. However, for the sake of argument, if <T> were a custom class or structure type, the compiler cannot assume it has overloaded the +, -, *, and / operators.
I've completed a OOP course assignment where I design and code a Complex Number class. For extra credit, I can do the following:
Add two complex numbers. The function will take one complex number object as a parameter and return a complex number object. When adding two complex numbers, the real part of the calling object is added to the real part of the complex number object passed as a parameter, and the imaginary part of the calling object is added to the imaginary part of the complex number object passed as a parameter.
Subtract two complex numbers. The
function will take one complex
number object as a parameter and
return a complex number object. When
subtracting two complex numbers, the
real part of the complex number
object passed as a parameter is
subtracted from the real part of the
calling object, and the imaginary
part of the complex number object
passed as a parameter is subtracted
from the imaginary part of the
calling object.
I have coded this up, and I used the this keyword to denote the current instance of the class, the code for my add method is below, and my subtract method looks similar:
public ComplexNumber Add(ComplexNumber c)
{
double realPartAdder = c.GetRealPart();
double complexPartAdder = c.GetComplexPart();
double realPartCaller = this.GetRealPart();
double complexPartCaller = this.GetComplexPart();
double finalRealPart = realPartCaller + realPartAdder;
double finalComplexPart = complexPartCaller + complexPartAdder;
ComplexNumber summedComplex = new ComplexNumber(finalRealPart, finalComplexPart);
return summedComplex;
}
My question is: Did I do this correctly and with good style? (using the this keyword)?
The use of the this keyword can be discussed, but it usually boils down to personal taste. In this case, while being redundant from a technical point of view, I personally think it adds clarity, so I would use it as well.
Use of the redundant this. is encouraged by the Microsoft coding standards as embodied in the StyleCop tool.
You can also to overload math operators, just like:
public static ComplexNumber operator +(ComplexNumber c1, ComplexNumber c2)
Since you're now learning C# and asking about style, I'm going to show you several things that are wrong with the code you posted along with reasons.
Edit: I only responded to this because it looks like you actually working to figure this stuff out. Since that's the type of people I prefer to work with, I'm more critical simply because I hope it helps you get somewhere better as a result. :)
Structure name
ComplexNumber is unnecessarily long. Note that none of Single, Double, Int32, Int64, etc. have Number in the name. This suggests Complex as a more appropriate name.
Complex matches the naming already established in the .NET Framework.
Real and imaginary components
GetRealPart() and GetComplexPart() should be get-only properties instead of methods.
GetComplexPart() is misnamed because it is actually returning the imaginary part.
Since the .NET framework already has a Complex structure, you shouldn't reinvent the naming. Therefore, unless you are in a position to redefine Framework conventions, the properties must be named Real and Imaginary.
Operations
If you look at existing examples like System.Windows.Vector, you see that math operations are implemented by providing a static method and an operator:
public static Point Add(Vector vector, Point point);
public static Point operator+(Vector vector, Point point);
Not surprisingly, this convention carried over to the System.Numerics.Complex structure:
public static Complex Add(Complex left, Complex right);
public static Complex operator +(Complex left, Complex right);
Summary
The result is clean, easy to verify, and behaves as everyone expects. The this keyword doesn't/can't appear because the methods are static.
public static Complex Add(Complex left, Complex right)
{
return new Complex(left.Real + right.Real, left.Imaginary + right.Imaginary);
}
public static Complex operator +(Complex left, Complex right)
{
return new Complex(left.Real + right.Real, left.Imaginary + right.Imaginary);
}
I use this keyword only for variables and when there's an argument that has the same name as the private variable. i.e.
private String firstname;
public SetName(String firstname)
{
this.firstname = firstname;
}
I would say yes, it looks correct and easy to read. But isn't this something your TA should answer?
double realPartCaller = this.GetRealPart();
Even if you omit this from GetRealPart() it should still be okay. But the use of this makes it quite easy to read and understand when it comes to maintainer.
double realPartCaller = this.GetRealPart(); ==> bit more readable IMHO
double realPartCaller = GetRealPart();
I find myself more and more using the this keyword for both methods and properties on the current instance, as I feel it increases readability and maintainability. this is especially useful if your class also has static methods and/or properties, on which you of course can not use the this keyword, as these are not related to the current instance. By using this, you clearly see the difference.
To bring it even further, you should consider using the class name as a qualifier for static methods and properties, even within the class itself.
Just to add completeness to the answers - there is one case when the this keyword is mandatory. That's when you have a local variable (or a method parameter) that has the same name as a class member. In this case writing it without this will access the local variable and with this will set the class member. To illustrate:
class MyClass
{
public int SomeVariable;
public void SomeMethod()
{
int SomeVariable;
SomeVariable = 4; // This assigns the local variable.
this.SomeVariable = 6; // This assigns the class member.
}
}
A couple things that follow from this:
Always avoid giving local variables the same name as class members (I admit, I don't always follow this myself);
Writing this in front of all member accesses acts like a safeguard. If you write a piece of code without it, and then later introduce a local variable with the same name and type as a class member, your code will still compile just fine, but will do something completely different (and probably wrong).
One instance though where I use the same names for method parameters as for class members is in constructors. I often write it like this:
class MyClass
{
public int VariableA;
public string VariableB;
public MyClass(int VariableA, string VariableB)
{
this.VariableA = VariableA;
this.VariableB = VariableB;
}
}
In my opinion this makes the constructor clearer, because you immediately understand which parameter sets which class member.
Usage of this keyword seems fine.
Though I believe for a class like Complex you should store the real and complex part as int properties and use them in the method, rather than using the methods GetRealPart() and GetComplexPart()
I would do it this way:
class ComplexNumber
{
public int RealPart { get; set; }
public int ComplexPart { get; set; }
public ComplexNumber(int real, int complex)
{
this.RealPart = real;
this.ComplexPart = complex;
}
public ComplexNumber Add(ComplexNumber c)
{
return new ComplexNumber(this.RealPart + c.RealPart, this.ComplexPart + c.ComplexPart);
}
}
The following is a scenario where this MUST be used, otherwise, the parameter and not the class member is considered for both LHS and RHS of the assignment.
public ComplexNumber(int RealPart, int ComplexPart)
{
RealPart = RealPart; // class member will not be assigned value of RealPart
ComplexPart = ComplexPart;
}
If you follow the naming conventions, using this is rearlly neded:
class MyClass
{
public int _variableA;
public string _variableB;
public MyClass(int variableA, string variableB)
{
_variableA = variableA;
_variableB = variableB;
}
}
So a friend was telling me how a game was hacked and how the technique worked. He then asked whats the best way to prevent that kind of attack. The most straight forward way i knew was to A) the shuffle the bits of important value B) hash the values and compare them every time (an int that holds the score or money is likely to be checked rarely).
Then i tried the implementation in C#, i couldnt overload the = operator. How can i do this?
ex code.
class EncryptVal <T>
{
T v;
public T operator = (T v2)
{
//shuffle bits
}
public T operator ()()
{
//return unshuffle bits
}
}
You're looking for the implicit and explicit operator, rather than saying =. This allows you to define how things will work when cast implicitly (ie, just an assignment) and explicitly (ie, there's a casting operator).
public static implicit operator Type1(Type2 p) {}
public static explicit operator Type1(Type2 p) {}
You can encapsulate the value in the class and overload the implicit conversions to and from the class:
public class EncryptVal<T> {
private T _value;
private EncryptVal(T value) {
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator EncryptVal<T>(T value) {
//shuffle bits
return new EncryptVal<T>(value);
}
public static implicit operator T(EncryptVal<T> value) {
//unshuffle bits
return value._value;
}
}
Usage:
// implicit conversion from int
EncryptVal<int> e = 42;
// implicit conversion to int
int i = e;
You are not allowed to overload the assignment operator in C#. Here's the MSDN documentation on it.
You'll have to create your own function for this behavior.
I assume that you come from C++ where it is very common to write classes that are used like primitive data types. In C# you do things more explicitly.
I would write it as a property or as two methods, eg:
class EncryptVal <T>
{
T v;
public T Value
{
get
{
//return unshuffle bits
}
set
{
//shuffle bits
}
}
}
Dont use = for setting the value. You cant overload assignment.
What you can do is hide it behind a property.
int _encyptedValue;
Public int myInt
{
get
{
return Decrypt(_encryptedValue);
}
set
{
_encryptedValue = Encrypt(value);
}
}
You get to chosse your decryption/encryption
I would go the for implicit/explicit operator overloading for the implementation part.
Probably the explicit one since your conversion does heavy processing, and that it eventually could fail.
I would just add that shuffling bits seems to be only an obfuscation technic that will surely not last long if you have wishfull hackers interested in your game.
You probably need stronger cryptography to protect your data, but more context is needed.