We Keep Coding

C# Is there any better way to use Switch-Case / If-Else on generic types

I am currently trying to get some casting on generic types done.
So the base idea is to have a method which accepts a generic Type and does different stuff depending on which type gets passed in.
For simplicity reasons I will just showcase the use of float, bool and default
The setup looks something like this (where T is a generic type defined by the class itself):
protected T DoStuff(T value)
{
switch (value) {
case float floatValue:
float result = DoFloatStuff(floatValue);
switch (result) {
case T output:
return output;
}
case bool boolValue:
bool result = DoBoolStuff(boolValue);
switch (result) {
case T output:
return output;
}
default:
// return value;
DoRealGenericStuff(value) // Edited, since I just want to sort out some special cases
}
}
Where DoFloatStuff and DoBoolStuff are just methods that have 1 parameter and a return type of their types respectively.
If I don't do it like that (I tried some typeof() casting before), the compiler always complains that it cannot cast from T to float and vice versa, even tho I made sure that would be the case with some Case-Switch / If-Else statements.
Does anybody know some better way to do this?
Thanks in advance,
BOTHLine
Edit:
Since a lot of people said kind of the same thing, that I either shouldn't use generics at all in a case like that or my methods would need to be more generic themselves..
My problem here is that I need to use 3rd party methods to handle the special cases I'm checking for (in this case the float and bool types). For the default case I already handled everything in a generic way. But for some defined types I just can't do that.
So to go a little more in detail why that's the case:
I'm currently working on a Plugin for the "Unity Engine". Unity has built in methods to display types (kind of all primitive types and some Unity-specific types). I have a generic Wrapper class which should be able to contain any types. But then when I want to display the content of that wrapper in the GUI that Unity Editor offers, I have to use the built-in methods to display the primitives (something like UnityEditor.EditrGUI.FloatField()). Without those methods I am never able to display anything.
Anything else which can be broken down to those types can then be displayed in a more generic way.

So the base idea is to have a method which accepts a generic Type and does different stuff depending on which type gets passed in.
That is the wrong idea. It's not the way generics should be used. In such a case, you should use method overloading to create the DoStuff for each type individually:
float DoStuff(float value) {/* float implementation here */}
bool DoStuff(bool value) {/* bool implementation here */}
...
The point of generic is to enable you to write a code that will run the same on different types - so it should either be used where the type itself is irrelevant to the code (like in any generic collection) or can be executed with an interface or a base class all the acceptable types implement (or inherits). At this point, generics is usually only needed when you want a method to return a specific implementation of an interface (or base class).

Let the compiler sort it out for you:
protected void DoStuff(float v){}
protected void DoStuff(int v){}
// and so on
//and finally the default:
protected void DoStuff(object v){}
public void Work(T value)
{
DoStuff(value)
}

This is not the short answer but it's the right way (by many standards). There might be a short answer but, if I were you I wouldn't bother.
This is the smell of a factory pattern. A generic should be, as the name suggests, generic and indifferent to the types if it is you can do something like this.
interface IDoStuffer<T>
{
T DoStuff(T value)
}
class DoStuffFloat : IDoStuff<float>
{
public float DoStuff(float value)
{
//Do your float stuff
}
}
class DoStuffBool : IDoStuff<bool>
{
public bool DoStuff(bool value)
{
//Do your bool stuff
}
}
Then you can have a factory give you a correct implementation
class DoStuffFactory
{
public IDoStuff<T> GetDoStuff<T>()
{
if(typeof(T) == typeof(float))
return new DoStuffFloat();
//And other types
}
}

Method overloads object and unspecified type

I have the following method with an overload:
public string GetName(object obj)
{
return obj.ToString();
}
public string GetName(CustomClass cc)
{
return cc.Name + " - " + cc.Description;
}
Now if I call the method with an untyped IEnumerable wich holds CustomClass the GetName(object obj) gets called, to fix this I have modified the method like this:
public string GetName(object obj)
{
if (obj is CustomClass)
return GetName(obj as CustomClass);
return obj.ToString();
}
I think its rather annoying to write 20 IF statements and catch all the other possibilities, is there an easier way to call the correct overload with an untyped IEnumerable enumeration?
Here is the code that calls the GetName(object obj):
IEnumerable rawData = GetData(); //DataBase method that fetches a CustomClass
foreach (var rawDataItem in rawData)
{
Debug.Print(GetName(rawDataItem)); //calls the GetName(object obj) overload
}
Pls dont tell me to override ToString from my CustomClass, help me fix this method calling problem.

Well, you could use dynamic typing. That will basically defer overload resolution until execution time:
foreach (dynamic rawDataItem in rawData)
{
Debug.Print(GetName(rawDataItem));
}
Note that there's potentially a performance cost here - it may well be minimal and insignificant, but it's worth being aware of.
EDIT: To handle the recursion side of things, you'd probably want two different names, e.g. GetName and GetNameImpl where GetName delegates to GetNameImpl which is what all the useful overloads are called. So you'd have:
// Note that dynamic as a parameter type is equivalent to object for callers.
// The dynamic part is only relevant within the method.
public string GetName(dynamic obj)
{
return GetNameImpl(obj);
}
// Fallback when no other overloads match
private string GetNameImpl(object obj)
{
...
}
private string GetNameImpl(IEnumerable obj)
{
// Maybe build up the name by calling GetName on each element?
}
Note that there's a potential problem with this: if you have two overloads for different interfaces and one type implements both interfaces (but there isn't a specific overload for that type itself) then you'll get an exception at execution time.
If you want callers to be able to call the overloads directly, you could just rename the dynamic one to GetNameDynamic and the others to GetName for example (and make them public).
I rarely find that dynamic is a good solution, but it would avoid the code duplication. I would try to step back and find a different design to be honest. You explicitly rejected it in the question, but polymorphism is the preferred way of handling this. You don't need to necessarily override ToString - you could make all of the custom types implement a particular interface, and use that where it's available, for example.

return GetName((dynamic)obj);
will postpone overload resolution till runtime.

Without dynamic typing, the classic OOP solution to supporting double dispatch (where the method called depends on both the concrete type of the object having the method and the concrete type of the passed object) is the visitor pattern.

Try this:
public string GetName(object obj)
{
if (!(obj is IEnumerable<object>))
return GetName(obj as CustomClass);
return obj.ToString();
}

How to use generic declared variable in C#

public static object GetObject(int x)
{
return new object { };
}
public static object GetObject(string x)
{
return new object { };
}
public static void ProcessObject<T>(T x) where T : int, string <= got error here:
{
object o = GetObject(x);
}
Got error "A type used as a constraint must be an interface, a non-sealed class or a type parameter."
How can I rewrite the code to get it work without write ProcessObject(int x) and ProcessObject(string x) twice?

So what you have now (according to accepted answer and your comments) is:
public static void ProcessObject<T>(T x)
{
object o;
if (typeof(T) == typeof(int))
o = GetObject((int)(object)x);
else if (typeof(T) == typeof(string))
o = GetObject((string)(object)x);
else
throw new Exception();
// do stuff with o
}
I'd recommend making public int and string overloads, but to prevent code duplication, internally call another method:
public static void ProcessObject(int x)
{
ProcessObject(GetObject(x));
}
public static void ProcessObject(string x)
{
ProcessObject(GetObject(x));
}
private static void ProcessObject(object o)
{
// do stuff with o
}
This makes your public methods' input values clear: int and string are the only acceptable types, while still not duplicating your actual logic (// do stuff with o).
You might dislike that the two public ProcessObject methods are duplicates of each other, (on the surface anyway; under the hood, they're calling two different GetObject overloads) but I think it's the best option.

You cannot do what you are trying to do: first, it is not possible to list several classes in a generic constraint; second, the type that you can put in a constraint must be such that you could inherit it (or implement it if it is an interface). Both int and string fail this check. In cases like this, you would be better off with two separate overloads.

Just remove the where part
public static void ProcessObject<T>(T x)
{
object o = GetObject(x);
}
And also don't use object in your other methods, instead use T

it's impossible in C# take a look on Constraints on Type Parameters. Try to use dynamic

Generally speaking, if your object reacts differently based on the generic type argument, you probably shouldn't be using generics in this case. Generics are great for situations where you want to do always the same thing, no matter what the actual type used.
Therefore, generic constraints will only allow you to list one base class for a type argument. Any actual types passed to the respective type arguments are meant to be a part of the given inheritance hierarchy starting with the base class you specified, so users of your class can specify any type that matches the base class or any of its subclasses.
At the same time, you, the author of the generic class, can safely assume that the specified type has (at least) the interface of the base class indicated by the constraint. Hence, you may access any members of the base class.
If you want to allow either string or int, imagine what members that could be. Both are derived directly from System.Object, hence the restriction would make no sense as it is no restriction; every type is derived from System.Object.
Summarizing, if you really want to treat string and int differently, this is definitely a case for offering two overloads rather than one generic class.

Better Alternative to Case Statement

I currently have a switch statement that runs around 300 odd lines. I know this is not as giant as it can get, but I'm sure there's a better way to handle this.
The switch statement takes an Enum that is used to determine certain properties that pertain to logging. Right now the problem sets in that it is very easy to leave out an enumeration value and that it will not be given a value as it is not in the switch statement.
Is there an option one can use to ensure that every enumeration is used and given a custom set of values it needs to do its job?
EDIT:
Code sample as requested: (This is simplistic, but shows exactly what I mean. Also an Enumeration would exist with the below values.)
internal void GenerateStatusLog(LogAction ActionToLog)
{
switch (ActionToLog)
{
case LogAction.None:
{
return;
}
case LogAction.LogThis:
{
ActionText = "Logging this Information";
LogText = "Go for it.";
break;
}
}
// .. Do everything else
}

EDIT
I thought this over again, looked around in related questions in SO, and I wrote some code. I created a class named AdvancedSwitch<T>, which allows you to add cases and exposes a method to evaluate a value and lets you specify values that it should check for existence.
This is what I came up with:
public class AdvancedSwitch<T> where T : struct
{
protected Dictionary<T, Action> handlers = new Dictionary<T, Action>();
public void AddHandler(T caseValue, Action action)
{
handlers.Add(caseValue, action);
}
public void RemoveHandler(T caseValue)
{
handlers.Remove(caseValue);
}
public void ExecuteHandler(T actualValue)
{
ExecuteHandler(actualValue, Enumerable.Empty<T>());
}
public void ExecuteHandler(T actualValue, IEnumerable<T> ensureExistence)
{
foreach (var val in ensureExistence)
if (!handlers.ContainsKey(val))
throw new InvalidOperationException("The case " + val.ToString() + " is not handled.");
handlers[actualValue]();
}
}
You can consume the class this way:
public enum TrafficColor { Red, Yellow, Green }
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Choose a traffic color: red, yellow, green?");
var color = (TrafficColor)Enum.Parse(typeof(TrafficColor), Console.ReadLine());
var result = string.Empty;
// Creating the "switch"
var mySwitch = new AdvancedSwitch<TrafficColor>();
// Adding a single case
mySwitch.AddHandler(TrafficColor.Green, delegate
{
result = "You may pass.";
});
// Adding multiple cases with the same action
Action redAndYellowDelegate = delegate
{
result = "You may not pass.";
};
mySwitch.AddHandler(TrafficColor.Red, redAndYellowDelegate);
mySwitch.AddHandler(TrafficColor.Yellow, redAndYellowDelegate);
// Evaluating it
mySwitch.ExecuteHandler(color, (TrafficColor[])Enum.GetValues(typeof(TrafficColor)));
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
With the creative use of anonymous delegates, you can easily add new cases to your "switch block". :)
Not that you can also use lambda expressions, and lambda blocks, eg () => { ... } instead of delegate { ... }.
You can easily use this class instead of the long switch blocks.
Original post:
If you use Visual Studio, always create swich statements with the switch code snippet. Type switch press tab twice, and it auto-generates all the possibilities for you.
Then, add a default case to the end which throws an exception, that way when testing your app you will notice that there is an unhandled case, instantly.
I mean something like this:
switch (something)
{
...
case YourEnum.SomeValue:
...
break;
default:
throw new InvalidOperationException("Default case reached.");
}

Well, there's throwing in the default case... There's no edit / compile time construct other than that.
However Strategy, Visitor and other patterns related to them may be appropriate if you choose to do it at run time.
Sample code will help with getting the best answer.
EDIT: Thanks for the sample. I still think it needs a bit of fleshing out as you dont cover whether there are some parameters that only apply to some cases etc.
Action is often used as an alias for the Command pattern and the fact that your Enum is called LogAction signifies that each value carries with it a behavior - be that implied (you stick appropriate code in a case) or explicit (in the specific Command hierarchy class).
Thus it looks to me like a usage of the Command pattern is appropriate (though your sample doesnt prove it) - i.e., have a class (potentially a hierarchy using constructor overloads or any other [set of] factory mechanisms) that keeps the state associated with the request along with the specific behaviour. Then, instead of passing an Enum value, create an appropriate LogCommand instance to the logger, which just invokes it (potentially passing a Log Sink 'receptacle' which the Command can log into). Otherwise you're poking random subsets of parameters in different places.
SEEALSO related posts:
C# - Is there a better alternative than this to ‘switch on type’?
Replace giant switch statement with what?

One possible solution is to use a SortedDictionary:
delegate void EnumHandler (args);
SortedDictionary <Enum, EnumHandler> handlers;
constructor
{
handlers = new SortedDictionary <Enum, EnumHandler> ();
fill in handlers
}
void SomeFunction (Enum enum)
{
EnumHandler handler;
if (handlers.TryGetValue (enum, out handler))
{
handler (args);
}
else
{
// not handled, report an error
}
}
This method does allow you to replace the handlers dynamically. You could also use a List as the value part of the dictionary and have multiple handlers for each enum.

Try to use reflection.
Decorate enum options with attributes that holds associated value and return this value.
Create static class of constants and use reflection for mapping enum-option to constant by name
hope this will help

Some times storing the options in a map is a good solution, you can externalize the configuration to a file too, not sure if it applies to your application.

Long code example here, and the final generic code is a little heavy (EDIT have added an extra example that eliminates the need for the angle brackets at the expense of some final flexibility).
One thing that this solution will give you is good performance - not quite as good as a straightforward switch statement, but each case statement becomes a dictionary lookup and method invocation, so still pretty good. The first call will get a performance penalty, however, due to the use of a static generic that reflects on initialisation.
Create an attribute and generic type as follows:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)]
public class DynamicSwitchAttribute : Attribute
{
public DynamicSwitchAttribute(Type enumType, params object[] targets)
{ Targets = new HashSet<object>(targets); EnumType = enumType; }
public Type EnumType { get; private set; }
public HashSet<object> Targets { get; private set; }
}
//this builds a cache of methods for a given TTarget type, with a
//signature equal to TAction,
//keyed by values of the type TEnum. All methods are expected to
//be instance methods.
//this code can easily be modified to support static methods instead.
//what would be nice here is if we could enforce a generic constraint
//on TAction : Delegate, but we can't.
public static class DynamicSwitch<TTarget, TEnum, TAction>
{
//our lookup of actions against enum values.
//note: no lock is required on this as it is built when the static
//class is initialised.
private static Dictionary<TEnum, TAction> _actions =
new Dictionary<TEnum, TAction>();
private static MethodInfo _tActionMethod;
private static MethodInfo TActionMethod
{
get
{
if (_tActionMethod == null)
{
//one criticism of this approach might be that validation exceptions
//will be thrown inside a TypeInitializationException.
_tActionMethod = typeof(TAction).GetMethod("Invoke",
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);
if (_tActionMethod == null)
throw new ArgumentException(/*elided*/);
//verify that the first parameter type is compatible with our
//TTarget type.
var methodParams = _tActionMethod.GetParameters();
if (methodParams.Length == 0)
throw new ArgumentException(/*elided*/);
//now check that the first parameter is compatible with our type TTarget
if (!methodParams[0].ParameterType.IsAssignableFrom(typeof(TTarget)))
throw new ArgumentException(/*elided*/);
}
return _tActionMethod;
}
}
static DynamicSwitch()
{
//examine the type TTarget to extract all public instance methods
//(you can change this to private instance if need be) which have a
//DynamicSwitchAttribute defined.
//we then project the attributes and the method into an anonymous type
var possibleMatchingMethods =
from method in typeof(TTarget).
GetMethods(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance)
let attributes = method.GetCustomAttributes(
typeof(DynamicSwitchAttribute), true).
Cast<DynamicSwitchAttribute>().ToArray()
where attributes!= null && attributes.Length == 1
&& attributes[0].EnumType.Equals(typeof(TEnum))
select new { Method = method, Attribute = attributes[0] };
//create linq expression parameter expressions for each of the
//delegate type's parameters
//these can be re-used for each of the dynamic methods we generate.
ParameterExpression[] paramExprs = TActionMethod.GetParameters().
Select((pinfo, index) =>
Expression.Parameter(
pinfo.ParameterType, pinfo.Name ?? string.Format("arg{0}"))
).ToArray();
//pre-build an array of these parameter expressions that only
//include the actual parameters
//for the method, and not the 'this' parameter.
ParameterExpression[] realParamExprs = paramExprs.Skip(1).ToArray();
//this has to be generated for each target method.
MethodCallExpression methodCall = null;
foreach (var match in possibleMatchingMethods)
{
if (!MethodMatchesAction(match.Method))
continue;
//right, now we're going to use System.Linq.Expressions to build
//a dynamic expression to invoke this method given an instance of TTarget.
methodCall =
Expression.Call(
Expression.Convert(
paramExprs[0], typeof(TTarget)
),
match.Method, realParamExprs);
TAction dynamicDelegate = Expression.
Lambda<TAction>(methodCall, paramExprs).Compile();
//now we have our method, we simply inject it into the dictionary, using
//all the unique TEnum values (from the attribute) as the keys
foreach (var enumValue in match.Attribute.Targets.OfType<TEnum>())
{
if (_actions.ContainsKey(enumValue))
throw new InvalidOperationException(/*elided*/);
_actions[enumValue] = dynamicDelegate;
}
}
}
private static bool MethodMatchesAction(MethodInfo method)
{
//so we want to check that the target method matches our desired
//delegate type (TAction).
//The way this is done is to fetch the delegate type's Invoke
//method (implicitly invoked when you invoke delegate(args)), and
//then we check the return type and parameters types of that
//against the return type and args of the method we've been passed.
//if the target method's return type is equal to or derived from the
//expected delegate's return type, then all is good.
if (!_tActionMethod.ReturnType.IsAssignableFrom(method.ReturnType))
return false;
//now, the parameter lists of the method will not be equal in length,
//as our delegate explicitly includes the 'this' parameter, whereas
//instance methods do not.
var methodParams = method.GetParameters();
var delegateParams = TActionMethod.GetParameters();
for (int i = 0; i < methodParams.Length; i++)
{
if (!methodParams[i].ParameterType.IsAssignableFrom(
delegateParams[i + 1].ParameterType))
return false;
}
return true;
}
public static TAction Resolve(TEnum value)
{
TAction result;
if (!_actions.TryGetValue(value, out result))
throw new ArgumentException("The value is not mapped");
return result;
}
}
Now do this in a Unit Test:
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
Assert.AreEqual(1,
DynamicSwitch<UnitTest1, Blah, Func<UnitTest1, int>>.
Resolve(Blah.BlahBlah)(this));
Assert.AreEqual(125,
DynamicSwitch<UnitTest1, Blah, Func<UnitTest1, int>>.
Resolve(Blah.Blip)(this));
Assert.AreEqual(125,
DynamicSwitch<UnitTest1, Blah, Func<UnitTest1, int>>.
Resolve(Blah.Bop)(this));
}
public enum Blah
{
BlahBlah,
Bloo,
Blip,
Bup,
Bop
}
[DynamicSwitchAttribute(typeof(Blah), Blah.BlahBlah)]
public int Method()
{
return 1;
}
[DynamicSwitchAttribute(typeof(Blah), Blah.Blip, Blah.Bop)]
public int Method2()
{
return 125;
}
So, given a value of TEnum, and your preferred 'action' type (in your code you would appear to be simply returning nothing and modifying the internal state of the class), you simply consult the DynamicSwitch<> class, ask it to resolve a target method, and then invoke it inline (passing the target object on which the method will be invoked as the first parameter).
I'm not really expecting any votes for this - it's a MAD solution to be honest (it does have the advantage of being able to be applied for any enum type, and even discreet values of type int/float/double, as well as supporting any delegate type) - so perhaps it's a bit of a sledgehammer!
EDIT
Once you have a static generic like this, angle-bracket hell ensues - so we want to try and get rid of them. A lot of the time, this is done by type inference on method parameters etc - but we have a problem here that we can't easily infer a delegate's signature without repeating the method call i.e. (args) => return.
However, you seem to require a method that takes no parameters and returns void, so you can close over this behemoth generic by fixing the delegate type to Action, and throw a fluid API into the mix as well (if that's your kind of thing):
public static class ActionSwitch
{
public class SwitchOn<TEnum>
{
private TEnum Value { get; set; }
internal SwitchOn(TEnum value)
{
Value = value;
}
public class Call<TTarget>{
private TEnum Value { get; set; }
private TTarget Target { get; set; }
internal Call(TEnum value, TTarget target)
{
Value = value;
Target = target;
Invoke();
}
internal void Invoke(){
DynamicSwitch<TTarget, TEnum, Action<TTarget>>.Resolve(Value)(Target);
}
}
public Call<TTarget> On<TTarget>(TTarget target)
{
return new Call<TTarget>(Value, target);
}
}
public static SwitchOn<TEnum> Switch<TEnum>(TEnum onValue)
{
return new SwitchOn<TEnum>(onValue);
}
}
Now add this to the test project:
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod2()
{
//no longer have any angle brackets
ActionSwitch.Switch(Blah.Bup).On(this);
Assert.IsTrue(_actionMethod1Called);
}
private bool _actionMethod1Called;
[DynamicSwitch(typeof(Blah), Blah.Bup)]
public void ActionMethod1()
{
_actionMethod1Called = true;
}
Only issue with this (apart from the complexity of the solution :) ) is that you'd have to re-build this static wrapper type whenever you want to use a new type of target delegate for a dynamic switch elsewhere. You could generate a generic version based on the Action<...> and Func<...> delegates that incorporates TArg1, TArg(n) and TReturn (if Func<>) - but you'd end up writing a lot more code.
Perhaps I'll turn this into an article on my blog and do all of that - if I get the time!

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()
}