We Keep Coding

Is it possible to have a collection of Object<T> classes? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Generic list of generic objects
(3 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have an object that I want to put into a List or Collection. Is there a way to do that without having the T specified?
I want to do something like this: List<CommonProperty<T>>
Here's the object for reference:
internal class CommonProperty<T>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
public List<T> PossibleValues { get; set; }
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
if (!_value.Equals(value))
{
_value = value;
}
}
}
}

No, you can't use open generic types like that.
You could have a List<CommonProperty<T>> within a context where T is already a type parameter:
public class Foo<T>
{
static void Bar()
{
// This is fine, but is not what you're looking for - it uses
// the type parameter T as the type argument
List<CommonProperty<T>> list = new List<CommonProperty<T>>();
}
}
Typically the solution here is to have a non-generic base class or interface which the generic class or interface derives from:
// Consider making it abstract
internal class CommonProperty
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
}
internal class CommonProperty<T> : CommonProperty
{
public List<T> PossibleValues { get; set; }
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get => _value;
set
{
// TODO: Is this really necessary?
if (!_value.Equals(value))
{
_value = value;
}
}
}
}
You can then create a List<CommonProperty>... although be aware that it's entirely possible that you could end up with an element which wasn't a CommonProperty<T> at all that way.
From the List<CommonProperty> you'd be able to retrieve the names and types of all the properties - but the values wouldn't be available without casting to the specific type. You could have an abstract object Value { get; set; } property in the base class, which was then overridden in the derived class, potentially - but it's not clear whether that's necessary or helpful in your use case.

I think the closest you can get is to define an interface to match an un-typed (specific) CommonProperty, using Object instead of the T. Then have your CommonProperty<T> implement that interface. Now you can use the interface with your list.
But this isn't great. You'll lose a lot of nice type checking, and have to do more casting. If this is the primary way you'll use these objects, there's not much point to having a generic class at all anymore.

It is not possible to put a mixture of generics instantiated with different type arguments into the same collection. Such collection would not be useful anyway, because the caller would be expected to supply T for each item at compile time.
Suppose you could do what you want, i.e.
// imagine that you could do this
List<CommonProperty<T>> mixedList = GetAllProperties();
You would be forced to supply T once you start using items from that list, i.e.
foreach (CommonProperty<T> prop in mixedList) {
... // ^^^
... // Here you would need to specify T, but you don't know which one
}
In other words, such list would be unusable.
A list of properties of a specific type, on the other hand, would be useful:
List<CommonProperty<string>> stringPropList = GetPropertiesOfType<string>();
foreach (CommonProperty<string> prop in stringPropList ) {
...
}
Therefore, one solution to your problem would be building GetPropertiesOfType<T> method returning List<CommonProperty<T>> bound to type T from the caller.
An alternative approach would be to make CommonProperty non-generic, and let the caller check the type at runtime:
internal class CommonProperty {
public string Name { get; set; }
public PropType Type { get; set; }
public List<T> GetPossibleValues<T> { get; set; }
private object _value;
public T GetValue<T>() {
return (T)_value;
}
public void SetValue<T>(T val) {
_value = val;
}
}

Property expression in class constructor, or as its own property

I have previously created methods that take a property as input using the following syntax:
public void MyMethod<T>(Expression<Func<T>> property) { }
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
public void SomeOtherMethod() {
MyMethod(() => MyProperty);
}
That way I can, for example, cast the property to a MemberExpression and get the fully qualified name of the property.
However, is it possible to do the same in a class constructor, or have a property that stores another property, like how the property variable does in MyMethod()?
I have tried the following, but that didn't work because the type parameter is not specified in either cases, but I wouldn't even know which type to use... especially because the type is magically inferred in the topmost example.
In constructor
public class MyClass<T> {
public MyClass(Expression<Func<T>> property) { }
}
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
var myClass = new MyClass(() => MyProperty);
As property
public class MyClass<T> {
public Expression<Func<T>> SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
var myClass = new MyClass() { SomeProperty = () => MyProperty };
So, how can I have a property expression in a constructor or property of its own without having the use the type definition?

Is it possible to [infer generic parameters] in a class constructor?
In C# generic inference is not supported on constructors, so you have to set it explicitly:
var myClass = new MyClass<int>(() => MyProperty);
The main reason it's not supported is because there are often many types that could be used as the generic constraint due to implicit type conversions, so the compiler would have to choose the "best" generic parameters based on the information that it has. The costs associated with designing, programming, testing, documenting, and integrating this logic outweigh the benefit, or at least don't provide a relative benefit that exceeds the other features that MS could spend time developing.
In this case you know the best generic parameter type because the MyProperty property returns an int. Technically you could use any type that is implicitly convertible from int (object, double, etc.) but int is the best fit.
Could I maybe use object as a catch-all?
Sure, but then your code isn't generic. You can just do
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(Expression<Func<object>> property) { }
}

You need to supply the type parameter of T
var myClass = new MyClass<int>(() => MyProperty);
var myClass = new MyClass<int>() { SomeProperty = () => MyProperty };
Otherwise it won't know what type of expression it should get in the constructor.

How to pass in a list of generic Objects?

I have an object with the following:
public class ExpenseFilters<T> {
public ExpenseFilterType Type {get;set;}
public T Value {get;set;}
}
T can be a string, int, decimal in this case.
I want to create a method that accepts a generic list of ExpenseFilters:
public void DoSomething(List<ExpenseFilters<T>> filterList) {}
Is this possible somehow?
EDIT: Apologies as I wasn't being clear enough.
I want the List of ExpenseFilters to not be constrained to one generic type.
For example, the list should contain
ExpenseFilters<int>
as well as
ExpenseFilters<string>
Is this possible?

Make the method generic:
public void DoSomething<T>(List<ExpenseFilters<T>> filterList) { }
When you use this method, the type parameter T can usually be inferred by the compiler, so you don't even need to specify it:
List<ExpenseFilters<int>> list = new List<ExpenseFilters<int>>();
DoSomething(list);
Edit
Turns out it's not what you wanted to do.
It's not possible to do it with generics. The closest thing you might do is to create a non-generic interface or base class implemented/inherited by the generic one.
public interface IExpenseFilters
{
ExpenseFilterType Type { get; set; }
object Value { get; set; }
}
public class ExpenseFilters<T> : IExpenseFilters
{
public ExpenseFilterType Type { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
object IExpenseFilters.Value
{
get { return Value; }
set
{
if (!(value is T))
throw new ArgumentException("Incorrect type", "value");
Value = (T)value;
}
}
}

What's the return type of an anonymous class

I have a class that used to have a string return type. Now I find I need to return more than a string. I was thinking to return something like below:
public string Test()
{
return ( new { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" } );
}
Is this even possible and if so then what would be the return type? I know it's not string ..

As others have said, the best thing to do here is to make a nominal type. I would suggest that the nominal type have the same characteristics as an anonymous type; that is, you should consider making the type immutable and consider making it exhibit value equality.
It is possible to return an anonymous type as object and then use the instance returned elsewhere using a variety of sneaky techniques. You can cast the object to "dynamic" (in C# 4) and then use the properties of the anonymous type, but this is slow and lacks compile-time type checking.
You can also use the "cast by example" trick, which does get you compile-time type checking. However, that trick only works when the anonymous source object and the anonymous example object come from the same assembly.
static T CastByExample<T>(object source, T example) where T : class
{
return source as T;
}
static object ReturnsAnonymous() { return new { X = 123 }; }
static void DoIt()
{
object obj = ReturnsAnonymous();
var example = new { X = 0 };
var anon = CastByExample(obj, example);
Console.WriteLine(anon.X); // 123
}
See how sneaky that is? We use method type inference and local variable type inference to tell the compiler "these two things are the same type". This lets you export an anonymous type as object and cast it back to anonymous type.
But you probably should not do this; if you're resorting to such sneaky tricks then you should simply be defining a nominal type in the first place. Also, like I said, the trick only works if the example and the source objects were created in code in the same assembly; two "identical" anonymous types in two different assemblies do not unify to be the same type.

The object that you return does have a class, but it's anonymous so you can't specify it in the code. You just have to return it as an object reference:
public object Test() {
return new { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" };
}
Note that the anonymous type is unknown outside the scope of the method, so reflection is the only way to access its properties.
If you want to be able to use the returned object conveniently, you should declare a class:
public class TestResult
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public TestResult Test() {
return new TestResult() { ID = 5, Name= "Dave" };
}
Another alternative is to use an existing class, if it fits your purpose. A KeyValuePair is close to what you use, but then the properties will of course be named Key and Value instead of ID and Name:
public KeyValuePair<int, string> Test() {
return new KeyValuePair<int, string>(5, "Dave");
}

This isn't possible as the anonymous class is only valid within the current context. If you need to return an object then you'll need to create a real class.
I'm assuming you left string as the return type by accident.

Anonymous type are class type that are derived directly from object.
You can return it from method as object as return type.
Have a look at this.

No, it's not possible. Your options are:
Define a real class for the return value,
Use System.Tuple, or
Use out parameters (probably the least good option).

You can make a struct (or class) for this.
public struct IdAndName
{
public int Id;
public string Name;
public IdAndName(int id, string name)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
}
}
You could also use a Tuple<T1, T2>, (but that's not recommended as the properties aren't named.

class NewString
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public NewString Test()
{
return ( new NewString() { ID = 5, Name = "Dave" } );
}
:)

How to implement a class to access objects of several different types in C#?

I'm trying to implement a class to access items of different types, in a similar way to database rows.
However, I have two different ideas in mind, and I don't know which one to choose:
Design 1
public enum ObjectTypeA
{
Undefined,
Integer,
Float
}
public class MyObjectA
{
private object val;
public ObjectTypeA Type
{
get;
private set;
}
public int Integer
{
get
{
if (Type != ObjectTypeA.Integer) throw new Exception();
return (int)val;
}
set
{
Type = ObjectTypeA.Integer;
val = value;
}
}
public float Float
{
get
{
if (Type != ObjectTypeA.Float) throw new Exception();
return (float)val;
}
set
{
Type = ObjectTypeA.Float;
val = value;
}
}
}
Less compile-time checks possible.
Can't use the is operator, GetType(), etc. (reinvents the type system).
Boxing and unboxing for value types.
Can be inherited by other classes (e.g. I can create a "named object" using inheritance).
Design 2
public abstract class MyObjectB
{
}
public class MyIntegerB : MyObjectB
{
public int Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyIntegerB(int _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
public class MyFloatB : MyObjectB
{
public float Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyFloatB(float _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
Shorter and simpler implementation.
Very verbose (casting) to use.
Performance is not critical, but it's still important, since most of the objects that are going to be stored are integers or floats, so boxing overhead matters.
The classes will just contain the values, not methods that depend on the type, etc. so it doesn't matter if the solution uses inheritance.
IMPORTANT: One of the requirements is that there may be two types that use the same underlying type (e.g. two classes derived from MyObjectB may use int as the Value), so using object or generics may not be possible.
Any suggestion about which design to use, or another different design?
EDIT:
The reason I don't like the second one is because it's very verbose to use:
MyObjectB objB = new MyIntegerB(12);
Console.WriteLine(((MyIntegerB)objB).Value);
And because I can't inherit it to create something like a "named object", so I have to attach MyObjectB to the class, and the usage is even more verbose.

I don't see why you wouldn't use generics here. More strongly: I don't see why you need this at all: It seems like Nullable<T> would cover all of your use cases very nicely. If not, implementing this generically is trivial:
public class ValueWrapper<T>
{
public T Value
{
get;
private set;
}
public Type WrappedType
{
get { return typeof(T); }
}
}
public MySpecialInt : ValueWrapper<int>
{
/* etc */
}

why not use generics?
public abstract class MyObjectB<T>
{
public T Value
{
get;
set;
}
public MyObjectB(T _value)
{
Value = _value;
}
}
you only need one class at this point. just instantiate it differently:
var myObj = new MyObjectB<Int>(1);
or
var myObj = new MyObjectB<Float>(0.012);

I know you mentioned not wanting to deal with boxing and unboxing, but I still think a Generic class would be your best bet here.
public class MyObject<T>
{
public MyObject(T t) {
Value = t;
}
public T Value { get; set; }
}
Edit:
One of the requirements is that there
may be two types that use the same
underlying type (e.g. two classes
derived from MyObjectB may use int as
the Value), so using object or
generics may not be possible.
That would only apply if you're extending the class. There's no problem if you wrap the class instead, i.e. create a MyObject<int> and access its Value property, rather than subclassing it.
Having said that, if you want to subclass a generic class, the subclass would also need to be a generic class.

Have you considered generics?
public class MyObjectA<T> {
public T Value {
get; set;
}
}

I've written a similar class that could hold either a single instance of ClassX or an array of ClassX. The trick was that it could change during runtime, so a generic wouldn't suffice, but I still wanted it strong-typed in all cases. It sounds like that's similar to what you're trying to accomplish here.
I chose the first option, and here's why: Wherever possible, I encapsulate complexity within a class to make the class easier to use. Classes should encapsulate away complexity from the caller, making calls to it more concise. If using MyObjectB makes your code more verbose, than I don't think that's the right answer.

if you need heterogeneous collections then this would do.
public enum ObjectTypeA
{
Undefined,
Integer,
Float
}
public class MyObjectA
{
public MyObjectA(object value) : this(value, InfereType(value))
{ }
public MyObjectA(object value, ObjectTypeA type)
{
Value = value;
Type = type;
}
public object Value { get; private set; }
public ObjectTypeA Type
{
get;
private set;
}
public T ValueAs<T>()
{
return (T)Value;
}
}
then use it like
List<MyObjectA> list = GetAllValues();
foreach (var item in list)
{
switch (item.WrappedType)
{
case MyObjecttypeA.Float:
float f = item.ValueAs<float>();
// do something with float
}
}