We Keep Coding

How to extract a static value from a type parameter

The code looks like this.
public class One<T> where T : Two {
public static int Y;
static One() {
// Y is to be initialised with the Z value from T
// this code does not compile
// Y = T.Z;
}
public int X { get { return Y; } }
}
public class Two {
public static int Z = 42;
}
public class Three {
public void Main() {
One<Two> a = new One<Two>();
Console.WriteLine("X = {0}", a.X); // should say 42
}
}
The idea is very simple: initialise the static value in a class from another static value in another class passed as a type parameter. There is nothing 'unsafe' about this, but the natural way to do it does not compile (see code).
I've searched SO and found a few near misses, but nothing that hits the spot. I've tried a few things including reflection, but to no avail. Any solution or even hints much appreciated.

Flydog's given you something you could use; I just wanted to make a quick note about my/jimi/enigmativity's comments:
It feel like you're hoping to subclass Two at some point and change out the Z; you reason that if your new class Three, which has a static Z of 43 and derives from Two, is used in combination with One then you'll end up with an .X that is 43. The problem comes in that static things cannot be overridden; they're resolved at compile time and they can look like overriding is at play in certain circumstances, but it's actually overloading or hiding and the compiler is picking something with a particular name in a defined order out of the inheritance tree
Because static things don't inherit (and arguably don't need to because they are hence always known to you, the developer, at compile time) there isn't the expectation that one day someone will subclass your code and write :
One<Four> a = new One<Four>();
And your code will need to pick up whatever they set Z to and use it. You know your Zs and can use them appropriately at compile tine and they know their Zs and should use them appropriately. But I understood where you were going with the T.Z thing..

It almost looks like it should work. Then you start typing T.Z and realize that your gut is agreeing with the compiler. T is a type parameter, it isn't a full fledged type-y thing.
Anyways, this works:
static One()
{
// Y is to be initialised with the Z value from T
var typeT = typeof(T);
var zFieldInfo = typeT.GetField("Z");
Y = (int) zFieldInfo.GetValue(null);
}
Yeah, it uses reflection, but it's only ever going to be run once.

I need a alternative to using a field initialize in a struct C# (Cannot have instance field initializers in structs)

Basically, I understand why I am getting an error here, however, I am not entirely sure what I should do as an alternative, here is my code:
public struct CashAmount
{
public int leftNumberExact, decimalNumberExact;
public string CashAmountExact = leftNumberExact + "." + decimalNumberExact;
public float CashAmountApprox = float.Parese(CashAmountExact);
}
Basically, I am trying to make a datatype that has exact precision like an int, but also has decimals. It must be absolutely EXACT no matter what which is why I am not using a ulong or double or some other form of floating point precision.

This code should do what you want. You still need to initialize 'leftNumberExact' and 'decimalNumberExact', but the other properties will Work:
public struct CashAmount
{
public int leftNumberExact, decimalNumberExact;
public string CashAmountExact
{
get:
{
return leftNumberExact + "." + decimalNumberExact;
}
}
public decimal CashAmountApprox
{
get:
{
return decimal.Parse(CashAmountExact);
}
}
}
As you can see I have made the fields into properties with only a getter.
I have also changed to the 'decimal' type, which should be total accurate.

If the constraint is actually "must be absolutely EXACT no matter what" then you should use something that enforces these constraints, for example peteroupc's Numbers library on github.
See the EDecimal class which enforces this rule for division:
Returns NaN if the result can't be exact because it would have a nonterminating decimal expansion.
This means, for instance, that 1/3 == NaN:
EDecimal.One.Divide(3) == NaN
In general, I think this is overly restrictive, and you're probably better off using a sane and intuitive library like a wrapper for GMPLib (the GNU multi precision library), or any number of other libraries available: one two.
If you're set on implementing something yourself, then at least check out the other libraries because you're going to end up with something similar to or based on BigInteger.

Is it a principle to always have the most abstract parameters and if so does it have a name?

For example, one might have a method max on an integer array.
public static int Max(int[] ints)
{
var max = ints[0];
foreach(var i in ints)
{
if(i > max)
{
max = i;
}
}
return max;
}
But actually we didn't utilize the fact that were were using an array, just that we could iterate over them, and we didn't need ints, we just needed an object that knows how to compare itself. So a more powerful method might be:
public static T MyMax<T>(IEnumerable<T> ts) where T : IComparable<T>
{
var max = ts.First();
foreach(var i in ts)
{
if(i.CompareTo(max) > 0)
{
max = i;
}
}
return max;
}
And I guess the above discounts the fact that the IEnumerable<T> could be infinite which would cause this to hang indefinitely, but then why are you trying to find the Max fo an infinite iterable in the first place.
The point I'm trying to make is that the second method is much more powerful than the former, as it makes the least assumptions about it's parameters as needed. Is there a name for such a principle? Is this even a thing?
Thanks in advance.

I would call this Programming to an Interface.
The design principle of Programming to an Interface is most commonly mentioned in the context of declaring variables, and that's how the famous Gang of Four book introduced the principle; but it applies equally well to declaring method parameters.
Don't declare variables to be instances of particular concrete classes. Instead, commit only to an interface defined by an abstract class. You will find this to be a common theme of design patterns...
The term variables here can be considered in a broad sense that includes method parameters.

What is the best way to calculate a formula when using an int as a divisor

Often I find myself having a expression where a division by int is a part of a large formula. I will give you a simple example that illustrate this problem:
int a = 2;
int b = 4;
int c = 5;
int d = a * (b / c);
In this case, d equals 0 as expected, but I would like this to be 1 since 4/5 multiplied by 2 is 1 3/5 and when converted to int get's "rounded" to 1. So I find myself having to cast c to double, and then since that makes the expression a double also, casting the entire expression to int. This code looks like this:
int a = 2;
int b = 4;
int c = 5;
int d = (int)(a * (b / (double)c));
In this small example it's not that bad, but in a big formula this get's quite messy.
Also, I guess that casting will take a (small) hit on performance.
So my question is basically if there is any better approach to this than casting both divisor and result.
I know that in this example, changing a*(b/c) to (a*b)/c would solve the problem, but in larger real-life scenarios, making this change will not be possible.
EDIT (added a case from an existing program):
In this case I'm caclulating the position of a scrollbar according to the size of the scrollbar, and the size of it's container. So if there is double the elements to fit on the page, the scrollbar will be half the height of the container, and if we have scrolled through half of the elements possible, that means that the scroller position should be moved 1/4 down so it will reside in the middle of the container. The calculations work as they should, and it displays fine. I just don't like how the expression looks in my code.
The important parts of the code is put and appended here:
int scrollerheight = (menusize.Height * menusize.Height) / originalheight;
int maxofset = originalheight - menusize.Height;
int scrollerposition = (int)((menusize.Height - scrollerheight) * (_overlayofset / (double)maxofset));
originalheight here is the height of all elements, so in the case described above, this will be the double of menusize.Height.

Disclaimer: I typed all this out, and then I thought, Should I even post this? I mean, it's a pretty bad idea and therefore doesn't really help the OP... In the end I figured, hey, I already typed it all out; I might as well go ahead and click "Post Your Answer." Even though it's a "bad" idea, it's kind of interesting (to me, anyway). So maybe you'll benefit in some strange way by reading it.
For some reason I have a suspicion the above disclaimer's not going to protect me from downvotes, though...
Here's a totally crazy idea.
I would actually not recommend putting this into any sort of production environment, at all, because I literally thought of it just now, which means I haven't really thought it through completely, and I'm sure there are about a billion problems with it. It's just an idea.
But the basic concept is to create a type that can be used for arithmetic expressions, internally using a double for every term in the expression, only to be evaluated as the desired type (in this case: int) at the end.
You'd start with a type like this:
// Probably you'd make this implement IEquatable<Term>, IEquatable<double>, etc.
// Probably you'd also give it a more descriptive, less ambiguous name.
// Probably you also just flat-out wouldn't use it at all.
struct Term
{
readonly double _value;
internal Term(double value)
{
_value = value;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
// You would want to override this, of course...
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
// ...as well as this...
return _value.GetHashCode();
}
public override string ToString()
{
// ...as well as this.
return _value.ToString();
}
}
Then you'd define implicit conversions to/from double and the type(s) you want to support (again: int). Like this:
public static implicit operator Term(int x)
{
return new Term((double)x);
}
public static implicit operator int(Term x)
{
return (int)x._value;
}
// ...and so on.
Next, define the operations themselves: Plus, Minus, etc. In the case of your example code, we'd need Times (for *) and DividedBy (for /):
public Term Times(Term multiplier)
{
// This would work because you would've defined an implicit conversion
// from double to Term.
return _value * multiplier._value;
}
public Term DividedBy(Term divisor)
{
// Same as above.
return _value / divisor._value;
}
Lastly, write a static helper class to enable you to perform Term-based operations on whatever types you want to work with (probably just int for starters):
public static class TermHelper
{
public static Term Times(this int number, Term multiplier)
{
return ((Term)number).Times(multiplier);
}
public static Term DividedBy(this int number, Term divisor)
{
return ((Term)number).DividedBy(divisor);
}
}
What would all of this buy you? Practically nothing! But it would clean up your expressions, hiding away all those unsightly explicit casts, making your code significantly more attractive and considerably more impossible to debug. (Once again, this is not an endorsement, just a crazy-ass idea.)
So instead of this:
int d = (int)(a * (b / (double)c)); // Output: 2
You'd have this:
int d = a.Times(b.DividedBy(c)); // Output: 2
Is it worth it?
Well, if having to write casting operations were the worst thing in the world, like, even worse than relying on code that's too clever for its own good, then maybe a solution like this would be worth pursuing.
Since the above is clearly not true... the answer is a pretty emphatic NO. But I just thought I'd share this idea anyway, to show that such a thing is (maybe) possible.

First of all, C# truncates the result of int division, and when casting to int. There's no rounding.
There's no way to do b / c first without any conversions.

Multiply b times 100. Then divide by 100 at the end.

In this case, I would suggest Using double instead, because you don't need 'exact' precision.
However, if you really feel you want to do it all without floating-point operation, I would suggest creating some kind of fraction class, which is far more complex and less efficient but you can keep track of all dividend and divisor and then calculate it all at once.

Can parameters be constant?

I'm looking for the C# equivalent of Java's final. Does it exist?
Does C# have anything like the following:
public Foo(final int bar);
In the above example, bar is a read only variable and cannot be changed by Foo(). Is there any way to do this in C#?
For instance, maybe I have a long method that will be working with x, y, and z coordinates of some object (ints). I want to be absolutely certain that the function doesn't alter these values in any way, thereby corrupting the data. Thus, I would like to declare them readonly.
public Foo(int x, int y, int z) {
// do stuff
x++; // oops. This corrupts the data. Can this be caught at compile time?
// do more stuff, assuming x is still the original value.
}

Unfortunately you cannot do this in C#.
The const keyword can only be used for local variables and fields.
The readonly keyword can only be used on fields.
NOTE: The Java language also supports having final parameters to a method. This functionality is non-existent in C#.
from http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html
EDIT (2019/08/13):
I'm throwing this in for visibility since this is accepted and highest on the list. It's now kind of possible with in parameters. See the answer below this one for details.

This is now possible in C# version 7.2:
You can use the in keyword in the method signature. MSDN documentation.
The in keyword should be added before specifying a method's argument.
Example, a valid method in C# 7.2:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
return x + y;
}
While the following is not allowed:
public long Add(in long x, in long y)
{
x = 10; // It is not allowed to modify an in-argument.
return x + y;
}
Following error will be shown when trying to modify either x or y since they are marked with in:
Cannot assign to variable 'in long' because it is a readonly variable
Marking an argument with in means:
This method does not modify the value of the argument used as this parameter.

The answer: C# doesn't have the const functionality like C++.
I agree with Bennett Dill.
The const keyword is very useful. In the example, you used an int and people don't get your point. But, why if you parameter is an user huge and complex object that can't be changed inside that function? That's the use of const keyword: parameter can't change inside that method because [whatever reason here] that doesn't matters for that method. Const keyword is very powerful and I really miss it in C#.

Here's a short and sweet answer that will probably get a lot of down votes. I haven't read all of the posts and comments, so please forgive me if this has been previously suggested.
Why not take your parameters and pass them into an object that exposes them as immutable and then use that object in your method?
I realize this is probably a very obvious work around that has already been considered and the OP is trying to avoid doing this by asking this question, but I felt it should be here none-the-less...
Good luck :-)

I'll start with the int portion. int is a value type, and in .Net that means you really are dealing with a copy. It's a really weird design constraint to tell a method "You can have a copy of this value. It's your copy, not mine; I'll never see it again. But you can't change the copy." It's implicit in the method call that copying this value is okay, otherwise we couldn't have safely called the method. If the method needs the original, leave it to the implementer to make a copy to save it. Either give the method the value or do not give the method the value. Don't go all wishy-washy in between.
Let's move on to reference types. Now it gets a little confusing. Do you mean a constant reference, where the reference itself cannot be changed, or a completely locked, unchangeable object? If the former, references in .Net by default are passed by value. That is, you get a copy of the reference. So we have essentially the same situation as for value types. If the implementor will need the original reference they can keep it themselves.
That just leaves us with constant (locked/immutable) object. This might seem okay from a runtime perspective, but how is the compiler to enforce it? Since properties and methods can all have side effects, you'd essentially be limited to read-only field access. Such an object isn't likely to be very interesting.

Create an interface for your class that has only readonly property accessors. Then have your parameter be of that interface rather than the class itself. Example:
public interface IExample
{
int ReadonlyValue { get; }
}
public class Example : IExample
{
public int Value { get; set; }
public int ReadonlyValue { get { return this.Value; } }
}
public void Foo(IExample example)
{
// Now only has access to the get accessors for the properties
}
For structs, create a generic const wrapper.
public struct Const<T>
{
public T Value { get; private set; }
public Const(T value)
{
this.Value = value;
}
}
public Foo(Const<float> X, Const<float> Y, Const<float> Z)
{
// Can only read these values
}
Its worth noting though, that its strange that you want to do what you're asking to do regarding structs, as the writer of the method you should expect to know whats going on in that method. It won't affect the values passed in to modify them within the method, so your only concern is making sure you behave yourself in the method you're writing. There comes a point where vigilance and clean code are the key, over enforcing const and other such rules.

I know this might be little late.
But for people that are still searching other ways for this, there might be another way around this limitation of C# standard.
We could write wrapper class ReadOnly<T> where T : struct.
With implicit conversion to base type T.
But only explicit conversion to wrapper<T> class.
Which will enforce compiler errors if developer tries implicit set to value of ReadOnly<T> type.
As I will demonstrate two possible uses below.
USAGE 1 required caller definition to change. This usage will have only use in testing for correctness of your "TestCalled" functions code. While on release level/builds you shouldn't use it. Since in large scale mathematical operations might overkill in conversions, and make your code slow. I wouldn't use it, but for demonstration purpose only I have posted it.
USAGE 2 which I would suggest, has Debug vs Release use demonstrated in TestCalled2 function. Also there would be no conversion in TestCaller function when using this approach, but it requires a little more of coding of TestCaller2 definitions using compiler conditioning. You can notice compiler errors in debug configuration, while on release configuration all code in TestCalled2 function will compile successfully.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class ReadOnly<VT>
where VT : struct
{
private VT value;
public ReadOnly(VT value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public static implicit operator VT(ReadOnly<VT> rvalue)
{
return rvalue.value;
}
public static explicit operator ReadOnly<VT>(VT rvalue)
{
return new ReadOnly<VT>(rvalue);
}
}
public static class TestFunctionArguments
{
static void TestCall()
{
long a = 0;
// CALL USAGE 1.
// explicite cast must exist in call to this function
// and clearly states it will be readonly inside TestCalled function.
TestCalled(a); // invalid call, we must explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
TestCalled((ReadOnly<long>)a); // explicit cast to ReadOnly<T>
// CALL USAGE 2.
// Debug vs Release call has no difference - no compiler errors
TestCalled2(a);
}
// ARG USAGE 1.
static void TestCalled(ReadOnly<long> a)
{
// invalid operations, compiler errors
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
// ARG USAGE 2.
#if DEBUG
static void TestCalled2(long a2_writable)
{
ReadOnly<long> a = new ReadOnly<long>(a2_writable);
#else
static void TestCalled2(long a)
{
#endif
// invalid operations
// compiler will have errors in debug configuration
// compiler will compile in release
a = 10L;
a += 2L;
a -= 2L;
a *= 2L;
a /= 2L;
a++;
a--;
// valid operations
// compiler will compile in both, debug and release configurations
long l;
l = a + 2;
l = a - 2;
l = a * 2;
l = a / 2;
l = a ^ 2;
l = a | 2;
l = a & 2;
l = a << 2;
l = a >> 2;
l = ~a;
}
}

If you often run into trouble like this then you should consider "apps hungarian". The good kind, as opposed to the bad kind. While this doesn't normally tries to express constant-ness of a method parameter (that's just too unusual), there is certainly nothing that stops you from tacking an extra "c" before the identifier name.
To all those aching to slam the downvote button now, please read the opinions of these luminaries on the topic:
Eric Lippert
Larry Osterman
Joel Spolsky

If struct is passed into a method, unless it's passed by ref, it will not be changed by the method it's passed into. So in that sense, yes.
Can you create a parameter whose value can't be assigned within the method or whose properties cannot be set while within the method? No. You cannot prevent the value from being assigned within the method, but you can prevent it's properties from being set by creating an immutable type.
The question isn't whether the parameter or it's properties can be assigned to within the method. The question is what it will be when the method exits.
The only time any outside data is going to be altered is if you pass a class in and change one of it's properties, or if you pass a value by using the ref keyword. The situation you've outlined does neither.

The recommended (well, by me) is to use an interface that provides read only access to the members. Remembering that if the "real" member is a reference type, then only provide access to an interface supporting read operations for that type -- recursing down the entire object hierarchy.