We Keep Coding

Why does the C# compiler allow a cast to be performed with Linq but not with parentheses?

I have a generic class NamedValue<TValue>:
public class NamedValue<TValue>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TValue Value { get; set; }
}
I have a second generic class, NamedValueSource<TValue> that contains a List<NamedValue<TValue>>:
public class NamedValueSource<TValue>
{
public List<NamedValue<TValue>> NamedValues { get; set; }
public NamedValueSource()
{
NamedValues = GetNamedValues().Cast<NamedValue<TValue>>().ToList();
}
private IEnumerable<NamedValue<bool>> GetNamedValues()
{
var yesNamedValue = new NamedValue<bool> { Name = "Yes", Value = true };
var noNamedValue = new NamedValue<bool> { Name = "Yes", Value = false };
yield return yesNamedValue;
yield return noNamedValue;
}
}
The following test code works perfectly (the assertion passes):
public class Tester
{
public Tester()
{
var source = new NamedValueSource<bool>();
Debug.Assert(source.NamedValues[0].Name == "Yes");
}
}
Now, here's the interesting part. If I attempt to perform the cast within GetNamedValues(), the code won't compile:
public class NamedValueSourceFail<TValue>
{
public List<NamedValue<TValue>> NamedValues { get; set; }
public NamedValueSourceFail()
{
NamedValues = GetNamedValues().ToList();
}
private IEnumerable<NamedValue<TValue>> GetNamedValues()
{
var yesNamedValue = new NamedValue<bool> { Name = "Yes", Value = true };
var noNamedValue = new NamedValue<bool> { Name = "Yes", Value = false };
yield return (NamedValue<TValue>)yesNamedValue; // ERROR: cannot convert type
yield return (NamedValue<TValue>)noNamedValue; // ERROR: cannot convert type
}
}
Why does NamedValueSource<TValue> compile while NamedValueSourceFail<TValue> errors out? Specifically, why am I able to perform the cast using Linq but not with good ol' parantheses?
Edit
In case it's not entirely clear from the comment thread of the accepted answer, I simply needed to convert to object first, then I would be allowed to cast to NamedValue<TValue>. This is probably how the Linq Cast method works behind the scenes.

UPDATE: This question was the subject of my blog on July 10th 2012; thanks for the great question!
Let's greatly simplify your complicated program.
public static class X
{
public static V Cast<V>(object o) { return (V)o; }
}
class C<T> {}
class D<U>
{
public C<U> value;
public D()
{
this.value = X.Cast<C<U>>(new C<bool>());
}
}
Now your second version, simplified:
class C<T> {}
class D<U>
{
public C<U> value;
public D()
{
this.value = (C<U>)(new C<bool>());
}
}
OK, so now let's ask some questions.
Why does the second program fail at compile time?
Because there is no conversion from C<bool> to C<U> for arbitrary U. The compiler knows that the only way this could possibly succeed is is U is always bool, and therefore this program is almost certainly wrong! The compiler assumes that U is going to be something other than bool some of the time.
Why then does the first program succeed at compile time?
The compiler has no idea that a method named "X.Cast" should be treated like a cast operator for the purposes of error detection! As far as the compiler is concerned, the Cast method is a method that takes an object in and returns a V for whatever type parameter is provided for V. When compiling the body of the ctor of D, the compiler has no idea whatsoever that some method, which probably isn't even in this program to begin with, is going to try to do a cast that is going to fail unless U happens to be bool.
The compiler simply has no basis upon which to treat the first version as an error, even though it most certainly is a deeply wrong program. You'll have to wait until runtime to find out that your program is wrong.
Now let's make a third version of your program:
class C<T> {}
class D<U>
{
public C<U> value;
public D()
{
this.value = (C<U>)(object)(new C<bool>());
}
}
This succeeds at compile time, so let's ask:
Why does this succeed at compile time?
For the exact same reason that the first one succeeds at compile time. When you inserted the cast you effectively said that you wanted the newly constructed C<bool> to be treated as an object, and so for the rest of the analysis of this expression, that expression is considered to be of type object, and not the more specific type C<bool>.
So then why is it legal to cast object to C<U> in this case? Or for that matter, to V in the first case?
It is legal to cast object to V because V could be the type of the object, a base type of the object or an interface implemented by the object, so the compiler allows the conversion because it figures there are a lot of ways it could possibly succeed.
Basically, it is legal to cast object to anything that you could convert to object. You cannot cast object to a pointer type, for instance, because no pointer type can be cast to object. But everything else is fair game.
By making the cast to object first, you are removing information from the purview of the compiler; you are saying "ignore the fact that you know this is always C<bool> for the purposes of error detection.

In your second example, you're trying to convert NamedValue<bool> to NamedValue<TValue> -- this won't work, because the conversion has to be valid for any type argument. You can't convert NamedValue<bool> to NamedValue<int> or NamedValue<string> or NamedValue<AnythingElseOtherThanBool>.
One solution is to make NamedValueSource<TValue> abstract, as well as its GetNamedValues() method, and then create a class BooleanNamedValueSource : NamedValueSource<bool> class to use in your test.
In the linq case, the cast is not being done by the compiler; the cast occurs in a method that has already been compiled. All the compiler knows is that it is calling a method that takes IEnumerable<bool> and returns IEnumerable<TValue>. The specifics of that conversion are entirely invisible to the compiler.

Can a C# extension method be added to an F# type?

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;

Generic Type parameter and the dynamic type

I want to know, in the example below, is the if statement in TrickyGenericMethod is a bad idea or if in certain situations it would be ok. In my case, I have a factory method, that uses the generic parameter to produce the correct result. Unfortunately, if the type reference of the object that is passed in is a reference to an interface or an abstract class, it will produce an incorrect result because T is not the actual type of the object.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HasGenericMethod hgm = new HasGenericMethod();
Console.WriteLine(hgm.GenericMehtod("string"));
Console.WriteLine(hgm.GenericMehtod((object)"object"));
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine(hgm.TrickyGenericMethod("string"));
Console.WriteLine(hgm.TrickyGenericMethod((object)"object"));
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
class HasGenericMethod
{
public string GenericMehtod<T>(T param)
{
return "Type of T:\t" + typeof(T) + "\tType of param:\t" + param.GetType();
}
public string TrickyGenericMethod<T>(T param)
{
if (typeof(T) != param.GetType())
{
return TrickyGenericMethod((dynamic)param);
}
return "Type of T:\t" + typeof(T) + "\tType of param:\t" + param.GetType(); ;
}
}

is the if statement in TrickyGenericMethod is a bad idea
Yes, it looks like it to me. In particular, if you call this from a different assembly using a value of an internal type (and it goes through this path once), the "execution time compiler" will use the best accessible type for the dynamic call... so you'll end up with a stack overflow.
EDIT: Sample code for that...
// Library.cs
using System;
public class Library
{
public static void Foo<T>(T value)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} : {1}", typeof(T), value.GetType());
if (typeof(T) != value.GetType())
{
dynamic d = value;
Foo(d);
}
}
}
// Test.cs
class Internal {}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Library.Foo<object>(new Internal());
}
}
Result:
System.Object : Internal
System.Object : Internal
...
System.Object : Internal
Process is terminated due to StackOverflowException.
There may be other similar situations where it doesn't quite work, too. I would try to avoid relying on typeof(T) == value.GetType() as far as possible.
You could unconditionally call a private implementation method using dynamic typing, so that you end up only trying this once, and ending up with "best effort" approach.

1st, it's a bad idea because you are using recursion in an unnecessary way, you have at most one other call so why make it recursive, a private helper method would be more clear and less error prone as a general practice.
2nd, you are testing for when T is going to be equal to GetType() and recursing until it is, thus just use the result of GetType() directly and be done with it.

How to dispatch C# generic method call into specialized method calls

I have the following C# class:
public class MyType<T>
{
public void TryParse(string p_value)
{
T value ;
Parser.TryParse(p_value, out value);
// Do something with value
}
}
The point is to call the right Parser.TryParse method, depending on the generic type T.
This uses the following static class:
static public class Parser
{
static public void TryParse(string p_intput, out object p_output)
{
// Do something and return the right value
}
static public void TryParse(string p_intput, out double p_output)
{
// Do something and return the right value
}
static public void TryParse(string p_intput, out int p_output)
{
// Do something and return the right value
}
}
I expected this to work: In the worst case, the "object" TryParse would be called. Instead, I have two compilation errors:
CS1502: The best overloaded method match for 'Parser.TryParse(string, out object)' has some invalid arguments
CS1503: Argument 2: cannot convert from 'out T' to 'out object'
Question 1: I don't understand why this doesn't work: I can be naive, but aren't all C# objects supposed to derive from "object" ? Why T cannot be converted to object?
Question 2: How can I dispatch a method with generic type T into the right non-generic methods (i.e. MyType<T>.TryParse calling the right Parser.TryParse according to the right type of T) ?
Note
The question was edited to reflect the original question intent (as written in the title: How to dispatch C# generic method call into specialized method calls)

Actually, ref and out parameters do not allow type variation. So, to pass a variable to a method expecting an out object parameter, that variable must be declared as object.
From the specification (§10.6.1.2 and §10.6.1.3)
When a formal parameter is a reference parameter, the corresponding argument in a method invocation must consist of the keyword ref followed by a variable-reference (§5.3.3) of the same type as the formal parameter.
When a formal parameter is an output parameter, the corresponding argument in a method invocation must consist of the keyword out followed by a variable-reference (§5.3.3) of the same type as the formal parameter.
See: Why do ref and out parameters not allow type variation? for some insight into why.
Bonus question: How can I dispatch a method with generic type T into the right non-generic methods (i.e. MyType<T>.TryParse calling the right Parser.TryParse according to the right type of T)?
I'm going to turn it back around on you. Why are you doing this? If you are invoking MyType<T>.TryParse as, say, MyType<int>.TryParse, why not call Int32.TryParse directly? What is this extra layer buying you?

I know this is somewhat low-tech, but I have had the same problem, where I solved it by making a Dictionary<Type, Parser> containing the individual parsers. I will be interested in what answers this questions bring.
Regards,
Morten

Current solution
The current solution I use at work is based on dynamic dispatch, that is, the keyword dynamic as defined on C# 4.0.
The code is something like (from memory) :
public class Parser
{
static public void TryParse<T>(string p_input, out T p_output)
{
// Because m_p is dynamic, the function to be called will
// be resolved at runtime, after T is known...
m_p.DoTryParse(p_input, out p_output) ;
}
// The dynamic keyword means every function called through
// m_p will be resolved at runtime, at the moment of the call
private dynamic m_p = new Parser() ;
// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
private void DoTryParse(string p_input, out double p_output)
{ /* Do something and return the right value */ }
private void DoTryParse(string p_input, out int p_output)
{ /* Do something and return the right value */ }
// etc.
private void DoTryParse<T>(string p_input, out T p_output)
{
// fallback method... There are no dedicated method for T,
// so p_output becomes the default value for T
p_output = default(T) ;
}
}
The elegant part is that it can't fail (the fallback function will be called, if none with a better signature match is found), and that it follows a simple pattern (overload the function).
Of course, the real-life, production code is somewhat different, and more complicated because, with but one public static method, I want to :
parse both reference objects (classes) and value objects (structs)
parse enums
parse nullable types
I want to offer the user the possibility to derive from Parser to offer its own overloads in addition to the default ones
But I guess the use of dynamic in the current solution is, in the end, the same thing as doing reflection as done in the original answer below. Only the "notation" changes.
Conclusion, I now have the following method :
public class Parser
{
static public void TryParse<T>(string p_input, out T p_output)
{
// etc.
}
}
which is able to parse anything, including in situations where T is not known at compile time (because the code is generic).
Original answer
Jason's answer was right about the first question (about the compiler errors). Still, I had no solution to my problem (dispatching from a generic method to non-generic methods according to the runtime generic type T).
I tried LukeH's answer, but it didn't work: The generic method is always called, no matter what (even when removing the out qualifier of the second parameter).
Morten's answer is the most sane one that should works, but it doesn't make use of reflection.
So, to solve my own problem, I used reflection. This needs the rewriting of the generic TryParse method:
public class MyType<T>
{
public void TryParse(string p_value)
{
T value = default(T);
// search for the method using reflection
System.Reflection.MethodInfo methodInfo = typeof(Parser).GetMethod
(
"TryParse",
new System.Type[] { typeof(string), typeof(T).MakeByRefType() }
);
if (methodInfo != null)
{
// the method does exist, so we can now call it
var parameters = new object[] { p_value, value };
methodInfo.Invoke(null, parameters);
value = (T)parameters[1];
}
else
{
// The method does not exist. Handle that case
}
}
}
I have the source code available if needed.

This problem intrigued me, so I did some research and found a nice thing by Paul Madox. This seems to do the trick.
public static T SafeParseAndAssign<T>(string val) where T: new()
{
try
{
T ValOut = new T();
MethodInfo MI = ValOut.GetType().
GetMethod("Parse", new Type[] { val.GetType() });
return (T)MI.Invoke(ValOut, new object[] { val });
}
catch
{
// swallow exception
}
return default(T);
}

Generics in c# & accessing the static members of T

My question concerns c# and how to access Static members ... Well I don't really know how to explain it (which kind of is bad for a question isn't it?) I will just give you some sample code:
Class test<T>{
int method1(Obj Parameter1){
//in here I want to do something which I would explain as
T.TryParse(Parameter1);
//my problem is that it does not work ... I get an error.
//just to explain: if I declare test<int> (with type Integer)
//I want my sample code to call int.TryParse(). If it were String
//it should have been String.TryParse()
}
}
So thank you guys for your answers (By the way the question is: how would I solve this problem without getting an error). This probably quite an easy question for you!
Edit: Thank you all for your answers!
Though I think the try - catch phrase is the most elegant, I know from my experience with vb that it can really be a bummer. I used it once and it took about 30 minutes to run a program, which later on only took 2 minutes to compute just because I avoided try - catch.
This is why I chose the switch statement as the best answer. It makes the code more complicated but on the other hand I imagine it to be relatively fast and relatively easy to read. (Though I still think there should be a more elegant way ... maybe in the next language I learn)
Though if you have some other suggestion I am still waiting (and willing to participate)

The problem is that TryParse isn't defined on an interface or base class anywhere, so you can't make an assumption that the type passed into your class will have that function. Unless you can contrain T in some way, you'll run into this a lot.
Constraints on Type Parameters

Short answer, you can't.
Long answer, you can cheat:
public class Example
{
internal static class Support
{
private delegate bool GenericParser<T>(string s, out T o);
private static Dictionary<Type, object> parsers =
MakeStandardParsers();
private static Dictionary<Type, object> MakeStandardParsers()
{
Dictionary<Type, object> d = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
// You need to add an entry for every type you want to cope with.
d[typeof(int)] = new GenericParser<int>(int.TryParse);
d[typeof(long)] = new GenericParser<long>(long.TryParse);
d[typeof(float)] = new GenericParser<float>(float.TryParse);
return d;
}
public static bool TryParse<T>(string s, out T result)
{
return ((GenericParser<T>)parsers[typeof(T)])(s, out result);
}
}
public class Test<T>
{
public static T method1(string s)
{
T value;
bool success = Support.TryParse(s, out value);
return value;
}
}
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(Test<int>.method1("23"));
Console.WriteLine(Test<float>.method1("23.4"));
Console.WriteLine(Test<long>.method1("99999999999999"));
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
I made a static dictionary holding a delegate for the TryParse method of every type I might want to use. I then wrote a generic method to look up the dictionary and pass on the call to the appropriate delegate. Since every delegate has a different type, I just store them as object references and cast them back to the appropriate generic type when I retrieve them. Note that for the sake of a simple example I have omitted error checking, such as to check whether we have an entry in the dictionary for the given type.

To access a member of a specific class or interface you need to use the Where keyword and specify the interface or base class that has the method.
In the above instance TryParse does not come from an interface or base class, so what you are trying to do above is not possible. Best just use Convert.ChangeType and a try/catch statement.
class test<T>
{
T Method(object P)
{
try {
return (T)Convert.ChangeType(P, typeof(T));
} catch(Exception e) {
return null;
}
}
}

One more way to do it, this time some reflection in the mix:
static class Parser
{
public static bool TryParse<TType>( string str, out TType x )
{
// Get the type on that TryParse shall be called
Type objType = typeof( TType );
// Enumerate the methods of TType
foreach( MethodInfo mi in objType.GetMethods() )
{
if( mi.Name == "TryParse" )
{
// We found a TryParse method, check for the 2-parameter-signature
ParameterInfo[] pi = mi.GetParameters();
if( pi.Length == 2 ) // Find TryParse( String, TType )
{
// Build a parameter list for the call
object[] paramList = new object[2] { str, default( TType ) };
// Invoke the static method
object ret = objType.InvokeMember( "TryParse", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, null, paramList );
// Get the output value from the parameter list
x = (TType)paramList[1];
return (bool)ret;
}
}
}
// Maybe we should throw an exception here, because we were unable to find the TryParse
// method; this is not just a unable-to-parse error.
x = default( TType );
return false;
}
}
The next step would be trying to implement
public static TRet CallStaticMethod<TRet>( object obj, string methodName, params object[] args );
With full parameter type matching etc.

This isn't really a solution, but in certain scenarios it could be a good alternative: We can pass an additional delegate to the generic method.
To clarify what I mean, let's use an example. Let's say we have some generic factory method, that should create an instance of T, and we want it to then call another method, for notification or additional initialization.
Consider the following simple class:
public class Example
{
// ...
public static void PostInitCallback(Example example)
{
// Do something with the object...
}
}
And the following static method:
public static T CreateAndInit<T>() where T : new()
{
var t = new T();
// Some initialization code...
return t;
}
So right now we would have to do:
var example = CreateAndInit<Example>();
Example.PostInitCallback(example);
However, we could change our method to take an additional delegate:
public delegate void PostInitCallback<T>(T t);
public static T CreateAndInit<T>(PostInitCallback<T> callback) where T : new()
{
var t = new T();
// Some initialization code...
callback(t);
return t;
}
And now we can change the call to:
var example = CreateAndInit<Example>(Example.PostInitCallback);
Obviously this is only useful in very specific scenarios. But this is the cleanest solution in the sense that we get compile time safety, there is no "hacking" involved, and the code is dead simple.

Do you mean to do something like this:
Class test<T>
{
T method1(object Parameter1){
if( Parameter1 is T )
{
T value = (T) Parameter1;
//do something with value
return value;
}
else
{
//Parameter1 is not a T
return default(T); //or throw exception
}
}
}
Unfortunately you can't check for the TryParse pattern as it is static - which unfortunately means that it isn't particularly well suited to generics.

The only way to do exactly what you're looking for would be to use reflection to check if the method exists for T.
Another option is to ensure that the object you send in is a convertible object by restraining the type to IConvertible (all primitive types implement IConvertible). This would allow you to convert your parameter to the given type very flexibly.
Class test<T>
{
int method1(IConvertible Parameter1){
IFormatProvider provider = System.Globalization.CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.GetFormat(typeof(T));
T temp = Parameter1.ToType(typeof(T), provider);
}
}
You could also do a variation on this by using an 'object' type instead like you had originally.
Class test<T>
{
int method1(object Parameter1){
if(Parameter1 is IConvertible) {
IFormatProvider provider = System.Globalization.CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.GetFormat(typeof(T));
T temp = Parameter1.ToType(typeof(T), provider);
} else {
// Do something else
}
}
}

Ok guys: Thanks for all the fish. Now with your answers and my research (especially the article on limiting generic types to primitives) I will present you my solution.
Class a<T>{
private void checkWetherTypeIsOK()
{
if (T is int || T is float //|| ... any other types you want to be allowed){
return true;
}
else {
throw new exception();
}
}
public static a(){
ccheckWetherTypeIsOK();
}
}

You probably cant do it.
First of all if it should be possible you would need a tighter bound on T so the typechecker could be sure that all possible substitutions for T actually had a static method called TryParse.

You may want to read my previous post on limiting generic types to primitives. This may give you some pointers in limiting the type that can be passed to the generic (since TypeParse is obviously only available to a set number of primitives ( string.TryParse obviously being the exception, which doesn't make sense).
Once you have more of a handle on the type, you can then work on trying to parse it. You may need a bit of an ugly switch in there (to call the correct TryParse ) but I think you can achieve the desired functionality.
If you need me to explain any of the above further, then please ask :)

Best code: restrict T to ValueType this way:
class test1<T> where T: struct
A "struct" here means a value type.
String is a class, not a value type.
int, float, Enums are all value types.
btw the compiler does not accept to call static methods or access static members on 'type parameters' like in the following example which will not compile :(
class MyStatic { public static int MyValue=0; }
class Test<T> where T: MyStatic
{
public void TheTest() { T.MyValue++; }
}
=> Error 1 'T' is a 'type parameter', which is not valid in the given context
SL.

That is not how statics work. You have to think of statics as sort of in a Global class even if they are are spread across a whole bunch of types. My recommendation is to make it a property inside the T instance that can access the necessary static method.
Also T is an actual instance of something, and just like any other instance you are not able to access the statics for that type, through the instantiated value. Here is an example of what to do:
class a {
static StaticMethod1 ()
virtual Method1 ()
}
class b : a {
override Method1 () return StaticMethod1()
}
class c : a {
override Method1 () return "XYZ"
}
class generic<T>
where T : a {
void DoSomething () T.Method1()
}