We Keep Coding

C# polymorphism - upcasting

I would like to ask you for an explanation of this example:
public class A : B
{
public override void Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
}
public class B
{
public virtual void Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
Equation:
void Main()
{
B b = (B)new A();
b.Method(); // result A
}
Why upcasting did not work in this case?

How microsoft docs say:
If you want your derived class to have a member with the same name as a member in a base class, you can use the new keyword to hide the base class member. The new keyword is put before the return type of a class member that is being replaced. The following code provides an example:

How to use base method's local function's in overriden method

If I had this code:
public virtual void Foo()
{
void Bar()
{
// do important stuff for Foo
}
}
// In a child class:
public override void Foo()
{
Bar(); // Doesn't work
base.Bar(); // Also doesn't work
}
Is there anyway to call the local function defined in Bar inside of Foo without making Bar a normal method?

Is there anyway to call the local function defined in Bar inside of Foo without making Bar a normal method?
There is no by-design way. That's what "local" means. A local is accessible by name only by code in the location of the declaration; that's why they're called "locals".
Is there "any" way? Sure, you could do all kinds of shenanigans with reflection and decompilation and unsafe code and so on. Please don't. Those are implementation details of the compiler; don't try to reverse-engineer them and certainly do not rely on any implementation choice the compiler team has made being permanent!

Yes, you can pass around a delegate to it just as you do with any lambda expression. And no, this doesn't break any "rules," and we do it in Javascript all the time, under the module pattern, or whatever it's called.
public class MyBase
{
protected Action Foo()
{
return Local;
void Local()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello world");
}
}
}
public class MyDerived : MyBase
{
public void HelloWorld()
{
var f = Foo();
f();
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var o = new MyDerived();
o.HelloWorld();
}
}
Output:
Hello world
Link to DotNetFiddle

Find out on which type a static method was called

I have a class A with a static method, and a derived class B. You can call Foo(), declared in A, on both A and B:
public class A
{
public static void Foo()
{
// How to get typeof(B) here if Foo called by using class B?
}
}
public class B : A
{
}
...
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
B.Foo();
}
}
Now inside Foo(), how can I find out on which type Foo() was called?
I can't use keyword this, because I do not create any objects here. I have tried already:
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType
and
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().ReflectedType
but they both return me the typeof(A), while I need to get the typeof(B).

I'm not sure exactly what you want to achieve, and agree with the comments that perhaps you can approach this a different way. Saying this, could you do what you need with a generic base class?
public class AB<T>
{
public static void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine(typeof(T));
}
}
public class A : AB<A> { }
public class B : AB<B> { }
A.Foo(); // A
B.Foo(); // B

There are no way to obtain typeof(B) inside of static method Foo() in this case. The possible solution is to use parameters in Foo method.
Thanks to #Jon Skeet and #CodeCaster.

How is the new keyword used to hide a method?

I have read an article regarding the new keyword. It says it is used to hide methods. This is example they give:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication3
{
class SampleA
{
public void Show()
{
Console.WriteLine("Sample A Test Method");
}
}
class SampleB:SampleA
{
public void Show()
{
Console.WriteLine("Sample B Test Method");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SampleA a = new SampleA();
SampleB b = new SampleB();
a.Show();
b.Show();
a = new SampleB();
a.Show();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Output:
Sample A Test Method
Sample B Test Method
Sample A Test Method
So my question isn't the new keyword used to instantiated an object? and its used to allocate memory for new created objects? Then how can method hiding be done using it? And is above example correct?

new is used for 3 different things. You could say there are 3 different keywords with the same name.
It's an operator, used to invoke constructors. Example: new object();
It's a modifier, used to hide an inherited member from a base class member. Example:
class Base {
public void MyMethod() {
//Do stuff
}
}
class Derived : Base {
public new void MyMethod() {
//Do other stuff
}
}
It's a generic type constraint, used to indicate that a generic type parameter has a parameterless constructor. Example:
class MyGenericClass<T> : where T : new() { ... }
Source: new

Isn't the new keyword used to instantiated an object?
Yes it is. Among other things.
then how can method hiding done using it?
The new keyword in the context of method and property definitions has another meaning than the new keyword used to instantiate objects. The new keyword in that context tells that there is a new start of the inheritance tree of that particular method or property. That's all.

Then how can method hiding be done using it? And is above example
correct?
Programming language syntax, grammar and semantics are just an arbitrary set of conventions and specifications. That is, C# can invent one, two or dozen of usages of a given keyword like new.
When new is used during a class member declaration, it means that you're re-using an identifier:
public class A
{
public string Text { get; set; }
}
public class B : A
{
new public int Text { get; set; }
}
As you can check in above code sample, B also implements a Text property, but since derives from A which has also defined a Text property, there's a naming collision.
The so-called new keyword can be used to re-use Text identifier and being able to implement another property Text which may behave absolutely different than the one implemented in the base class. See that Text on B is of type int!
The most important point here is that re-using identifiers isn't the same as using polymorphism, where a class method or property override must match base class' member signature:
public class A
{
public virtual string Text { get; set; }
}
public class B : A
{
public override string Text
{
get { return base.Text; }
set { base.Text = value; }
}
}
Also, re-used identifiers are dangerous:
public class A
{
public string Text { get; set; }
}
public class B : A
{
new public int Text { get; set; }
}
B b = new B();
b.Text = 4;
// Upcast B to A
A a = b;
a.Text = "Bye bye";
Console.WriteLine(a.Text); // Output: Bye bye
Console.WriteLine(b.Text); // Output: 4
See the output of Text. Since re-using identifiers isn't polymorphism, and in above case both are completely different properties, there's an A.Text and B.Text that can be set separately.

To hide an inherited member, declare it in the derived class by using the same member name, and modify it with the new keyword. For example:
public class BaseC
{
public static int x = 55;
public static int y = 22;
}
public class DerivedC : BaseC
{
// Hide field 'x'.
new public static int x = 100;
static void Main()
{
// Display the new value of x:
Console.WriteLine(x);
// Display the hidden value of x:
Console.WriteLine(BaseC.x);
// Display the unhidden member y:
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
}
/*
Output:
100
55
22
*/
You can read more in here

How can I overload a C# method by specific instances of a generic type

Coming from a C++ background, I've run into a snag with overloading based on a specific instance of a generic type. The following doesn't work since only once instance of the code for the Foo<T> class is ever generated, so inside the Method, the type of this is simply Foo<T>, not Foo<A> or Foo<B> as I'd hoped. In C++ I'm used to templates being instantiated as unique types.
using System.Collections.Generic;
class A
{
// Concrete class
}
class B
{
// Concrete class
}
class Bar
{
public void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a) {} // do some A related stuff
public void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b) {} // do some B related stuff
public void OverloadedMethod(OtherFoo of) {} // do some other stuff
public void VisitFoo(FooBase fb) { fb.Method(this); }
}
abstract class FooBase
{
public abstract void Method(Bar b);
}
class Foo<T> : FooBase
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
// Doesn't compile here
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class OtherFoo : FooBase
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<FooBase> ListOfFoos = new List<FooBase>();
ListOfFoos.Add(new OtherFoo());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo<A>());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo<B>());
Bar b = new Bar();
foreach (FooBase fb in ListOfFoos)
b.VisitFoo(fb);
// Hopefully call each of the Bar::Overloaded methods
}
}
Is there a way to get something like this to work in C#? I'd rather not have to duplicate the code in Foo as separate classes for every type I want to use it for.
Edit:
Hopefully this is a little clearer.

I now have a genuinely complete piece of code which demonstrates the problem. Note to OP: please try compiling your code before posting it. There were a bunch of things I had to do to get this far. It's good to make it as easy as possible for other people to help you. I've also removed a bunch of extraneous bits. OtherFoo isn't really relevant here, nor is FooBase.
class A {}
class B {}
class Bar
{
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a) { }
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b) { }
}
class Foo<T>
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
public void Method()
{
// Doesn't compile here
Bar.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
Yes, this doesn't compile. What did you expect it to do, exactly? Bear in mind that the overload resolution is performed at compile time, not execution time. As fallen888 says, you could cast and call the appropriate overloaded method - but which of the two overloads would you expect the compiler to pick otherwise? What do you want it to do with Foo<string> instead of Foo<A> or Foo<B>?
This all goes to demonstrate that .NET generics are indeed significantly different from C++ templates, of course...

I haven't tried it but it seems you should be able to achieve what you want by making A & B visitable (e.g. with the acyclic visitor pattern).

This works for the static case. Dealing with instance functions would be a bit more complicated. This post from Jon Skeet might provide a reasonable way to deal with instance methods.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var testA = new Foo<A>();
testA.Method();
var testB = new Foo<B>();
testB.Method();
Console.ReadLine();
var testString = new Foo<string>(); //Fails
testString.Method();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class A { }
class B { }
class Bar
{
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a)
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
class Foo<T>
{
static Foo()
{
overloaded = (Action<Foo<T>>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<Foo<T>>), typeof(Bar).GetMethod("OverloadedMethod", new Type[] { typeof(Foo<T>) }));
}
public void Method()
{
overloaded(this);
}
private static readonly Action<Foo<T>> overloaded;
}

Edit: I'm not sure that you can complete this as you're attempting. I've tried all sorts of tricks to attempt to get this to work and can't get it to compile. The best I can do is to pull the method call outside of my Generic class. If your method call is outside, then you can specifically define what T is in the generic. However, inside the method, at compile time, the compiler doesn't know what T will be so it doesn't know which overloaded method to call. The only way I can see around this is to use a switch to determine the type of T and manually specify the overload to call.
The best I can do is this, which isn't quite what you're after, but it could be used to a similar effect:
class Stuff<T>
{
public T value { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void DummyFunc(Stuff<int> inst)
{
Console.WriteLine("Stuff<int>: {0}", inst.value.ToString());
}
static void DummyFunc(Stuff<string> inst)
{
Console.WriteLine("Stuff<string>: {0}", inst.value);
}
static void DummyFunc(int value)
{
Console.WriteLine("int: {0}", value.ToString());
}
static void DummyFunc(string value)
{
Console.WriteLine("string: {0}", value);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new Stuff<string>();
a.value = "HelloWorld";
var b = new Stuff<int>();
b.value = 1;
var c = "HelloWorld";
var d = 1;
DummyFunc(a);
DummyFunc(b);
DummyFunc(c);
DummyFunc(d);
}
}
and got output:
Stuff<string>: HelloWorld
Stuff<int>: 1
string: HelloWorld
int: 1
I've got four overloaded functions referencing two referencing generic classes (one for int and one for string) and two referencing regular types (one for int and one for string) and it all works okay... is this what you're after?
Edit: The problem doesn't seem to be with the calling of the overloaded methods, it has to do with your foreach which is trying to convert all items in the list to the same type as the first in order to reference the overloaded method. The first item that doesn't conform to that exact definition will cause your compile to fail.

I was hoping to find an easier way to do this but for now I'm going with this:
Replace Foo<T> class with these classes:
abstract class Foo<T> : FooBase
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
}
class Foo_A : Foo<A>
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class Foo_B : Foo<B>
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
// Doesn't compile here
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
And change the instantiations to
List<FooBase> ListOfFoos = new List<FooBase>();
ListOfFoos.Add(new OtherFoo());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo_A());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo_B());
This at least doesn't require dublicating the code in Foo<T>, and just requires me to forward the constructors.