We Keep Coding

Is there a better way to create Class than this? [duplicate]

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
For instance I'm able to implement the missing multiple inheritance pattern using interfaces and three classes like that:
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class First:IFirst
{
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class Second:ISecond
{
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst, ISecond
{
First first = new First();
Second second = new Second();
public void FirstMethod() { first.FirstMethod(); }
public void SecondMethod() { second.SecondMethod(); }
}
Every time I add a method to one of the interfaces I need to change the class FirstAndSecond as well.
Is there a way to inject multiple existing classes into one new class like it is possible in C++?
Maybe there is a solution using some kind of code generation?
Or it may look like this (imaginary c# syntax):
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst from First, ISecond from Second
{ }
So that there won't be a need to update the class FirstAndSecond when I modify one of the interfaces.
EDIT
Maybe it would be better to consider a practical example:
You have an existing class (e.g. a text based TCP client based on ITextTcpClient) which you do already use at different locations inside your project. Now you feel the need to create a component of your class to be easy accessible for windows forms developers.
As far as I know you currently have two ways to do this:
Write a new class that is inherited from components and implements the interface of the TextTcpClient class using an instance of the class itself as shown with FirstAndSecond.
Write a new class that inherits from TextTcpClient and somehow implements IComponent (haven't actually tried this yet).
In both cases you need to do work per method and not per class. Since you know that we will need all the methods of TextTcpClient and Component it would be the easiest solution to just combine those two into one class.
To avoid conflicts this may be done by code generation where the result could be altered afterwards but typing this by hand is a pure pain in the ass.

Consider just using composition instead of trying to simulate Multiple Inheritance. You can use Interfaces to define what classes make up the composition, eg: ISteerable implies a property of type SteeringWheel, IBrakable implies a property of type BrakePedal, etc.
Once you've done that, you could use the Extension Methods feature added to C# 3.0 to further simplify calling methods on those implied properties, eg:
public interface ISteerable { SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; } }
public interface IBrakable { BrakePedal brake { get; set; } }
public class Vehicle : ISteerable, IBrakable
{
public SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; }
public BrakePedal brake { get; set; }
public Vehicle() { wheel = new SteeringWheel(); brake = new BrakePedal(); }
}
public static class SteeringExtensions
{
public static void SteerLeft(this ISteerable vehicle)
{
vehicle.wheel.SteerLeft();
}
}
public static class BrakeExtensions
{
public static void Stop(this IBrakable vehicle)
{
vehicle.brake.ApplyUntilStop();
}
}
public class Main
{
Vehicle myCar = new Vehicle();
public void main()
{
myCar.SteerLeft();
myCar.Stop();
}
}

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other languages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"
MI is a useful concept, the un-answered questions are ones like:- "What do you do when you have multiple common base classes in the different superclasses?
Perl is the only language I've ever worked with where MI works and works well. .Net may well introduce it one day but not yet, the CLR does already support MI but as I've said, there are no language constructs for it beyond that yet.
Until then you are stuck with Proxy objects and multiple Interfaces instead :(

I created a C# post-compiler that enables this kind of thing:
using NRoles;
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class RFirst : IFirst, Role {
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class RSecond : ISecond, Role {
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond : Does<RFirst>, Does<RSecond> { }
You can run the post-compiler as a Visual Studio post-build-event:
C:\some_path\nroles-v0.1.0-bin\nutate.exe "$(TargetPath)"
In the same assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.As<RFirst>().FirstMethod();
fas.As<RSecond>().SecondMethod();
In another assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.FirstMethod();
fas.SecondMethod();

You could have one abstract base class that implements both IFirst and ISecond, and then inherit from just that base.

With C# 8 now you practically have multiple inheritance via default implementation of interface members:
interface ILogger
{
void Log(LogLevel level, string message);
void Log(Exception ex) => Log(LogLevel.Error, ex.ToString()); // New overload
}
class ConsoleLogger : ILogger
{
public void Log(LogLevel level, string message) { ... }
// Log(Exception) gets default implementation
}

This is along the lines of Lawrence Wenham's answer, but depending on your use case, it may or may not be an improvement -- you don't need the setters.
public interface IPerson {
int GetAge();
string GetName();
}
public interface IGetPerson {
IPerson GetPerson();
}
public static class IGetPersonAdditions {
public static int GetAgeViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) { // I prefer to have the "ViaPerson" in the name in case the object has another Age property.
IPerson person = getPerson.GetPersion();
return person.GetAge();
}
public static string GetNameViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) {
return getPerson.GetPerson().GetName();
}
}
public class Person: IPerson, IGetPerson {
private int Age {get;set;}
private string Name {get;set;}
public IPerson GetPerson() {
return this;
}
public int GetAge() { return Age; }
public string GetName() { return Name; }
}
Now any object that knows how to get a person can implement IGetPerson, and it will automatically have the GetAgeViaPerson() and GetNameViaPerson() methods. From this point, basically all Person code goes into IGetPerson, not into IPerson, other than new ivars, which have to go into both. And in using such code, you don't have to be concerned about whether or not your IGetPerson object is itself actually an IPerson.

In my own implementation I found that using classes/interfaces for MI, although "good form", tended to be a massive over complication since you need to set up all that multiple inheritance for only a few necessary function calls, and in my case, needed to be done literally dozens of times redundantly.
Instead it was easier to simply make static "functions that call functions that call functions" in different modular varieties as a sort of OOP replacement. The solution I was working on was the "spell system" for a RPG where effects need to heavily mix-and-match function calling to give an extreme variety of spells without re-writing code, much like the example seems to indicate.
Most of the functions can now be static because I don't necessarily need an instance for spell logic, whereas class inheritance can't even use virtual or abstract keywords while static. Interfaces can't use them at all.
Coding seems way faster and cleaner this way IMO. If you're just doing functions, and don't need inherited properties, use functions.

If you can live with the restriction that the methods of IFirst and ISecond must only interact with the contract of IFirst and ISecond (like in your example)... you can do what you ask with extension methods. In practice, this is rarely the case.
public interface IFirst {}
public interface ISecond {}
public class FirstAndSecond : IFirst, ISecond
{
}
public static MultipleInheritenceExtensions
{
public static void First(this IFirst theFirst)
{
Console.WriteLine("First");
}
public static void Second(this ISecond theSecond)
{
Console.WriteLine("Second");
}
}
///
public void Test()
{
FirstAndSecond fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.First();
fas.Second();
}
So the basic idea is that you define the required implementation in the interfaces... this required stuff should support the flexible implementation in the extension methods. Anytime you need to "add methods to the interface" instead you add an extension method.

Yes using Interface is a hassle because anytime we add a method in the class we have to add the signature in the interface. Also, what if we already have a class with a bunch of methods but no Interface for it? we have to manually create Interface for all the classes that we want to inherit from. And the worst thing is, we have to implement all methods in the Interfaces in the child class if the child class is to inherit from the multiple interface.
By following Facade design pattern we can simulate inheriting from multiple classes using accessors. Declare the classes as properties with {get;set;} inside the class that need to inherit and all public properties and methods are from that class, and in the constructor of the child class instantiate the parent classes.
For example:
namespace OOP
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Child somechild = new Child();
somechild.DoHomeWork();
somechild.CheckingAround();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Father
{
public Father() { }
public void Work()
{
Console.WriteLine("working...");
}
public void Moonlight()
{
Console.WriteLine("moonlighting...");
}
}
public class Mother
{
public Mother() { }
public void Cook()
{
Console.WriteLine("cooking...");
}
public void Clean()
{
Console.WriteLine("cleaning...");
}
}
public class Child
{
public Father MyFather { get; set; }
public Mother MyMother { get; set; }
public Child()
{
MyFather = new Father();
MyMother = new Mother();
}
public void GoToSchool()
{
Console.WriteLine("go to school...");
}
public void DoHomeWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("doing homework...");
}
public void CheckingAround()
{
MyFather.Work();
MyMother.Cook();
}
}
}
with this structure class Child will have access to all methods and properties of Class Father and Mother, simulating multiple inheritance, inheriting an instance of the parent classes. Not quite the same but it is practical.

Multiple inheritance is one of those things that generally causes more problems than it solves. In C++ it fits the pattern of giving you enough rope to hang yourself, but Java and C# have chosen to go the safer route of not giving you the option. The biggest problem is what to do if you inherit multiple classes that have a method with the same signature that the inheritee doesn't implement. Which class's method should it choose? Or should that not compile? There is generally another way to implement most things that doesn't rely on multiple inheritance.

If X inherits from Y, that has two somewhat orthogonal effects:
Y will provide default functionality for X, so the code for X only has to include stuff which is different from Y.
Almost anyplace a Y would be expected, an X may be used instead.
Although inheritance provides for both features, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where either could be of use without the other. No .net language I know of has a direct way of implementing the first without the second, though one could obtain such functionality by defining a base class which is never used directly, and having one or more classes that inherit directly from it without adding anything new (such classes could share all their code, but would not be substitutable for each other). Any CLR-compliant language, however, will allow the use of interfaces which provide the second feature of interfaces (substitutability) without the first (member reuse).

i know i know
even though its not allowed and so on, sometime u actualy need it so for the those:
class a {}
class b : a {}
class c : b {}
like in my case i wanted to do this
class b : Form (yep the windows.forms)
class c : b {}
cause half of the function were identical and with interface u must rewrite them all

Since the question of multiple inheritance (MI) pops up from time to time, I'd like to add an approach which addresses some problems with the composition pattern.
I build upon the IFirst, ISecond,First, Second, FirstAndSecond approach, as it was presented in the question. I reduce sample code to IFirst, since the pattern stays the same regardless of the number of interfaces / MI base classes.
Lets assume, that with MI First and Second would both derive from the same base class BaseClass, using only public interface elements from BaseClass
This can be expressed, by adding a container reference to BaseClass in the First and Second implementation:
class First : IFirst {
private BaseClass ContainerInstance;
First(BaseClass container) { ContainerInstance = container; }
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
}
...
Things become more complicated, when protected interface elements from BaseClass are referenced or when First and Second would be abstract classes in MI, requiring their subclasses to implement some abstract parts.
class BaseClass {
protected void DoStuff();
}
abstract class First : IFirst {
public void FirstMethod() { DoStuff(); DoSubClassStuff(); }
protected abstract void DoStuff(); // base class reference in MI
protected abstract void DoSubClassStuff(); // sub class responsibility
}
C# allows nested classes to access protected/private elements of their containing classes, so this can be used to link the abstract bits from the First implementation.
class FirstAndSecond : BaseClass, IFirst, ISecond {
// link interface
private class PartFirst : First {
private FirstAndSecond ContainerInstance;
public PartFirst(FirstAndSecond container) {
ContainerInstance = container;
}
// forwarded references to emulate access as it would be with MI
protected override void DoStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
protected override void DoSubClassStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoSubClassStuff(); }
}
private IFirst partFirstInstance; // composition object
public FirstMethod() { partFirstInstance.FirstMethod(); } // forwarded implementation
public FirstAndSecond() {
partFirstInstance = new PartFirst(this); // composition in constructor
}
// same stuff for Second
//...
// implementation of DoSubClassStuff
private void DoSubClassStuff() { Console.WriteLine("Private method accessed"); }
}
There is quite some boilerplate involved, but if the actual implementation of FirstMethod and SecondMethod are sufficiently complex and the amount of accessed private/protected methods is moderate, then this pattern may help to overcome lacking multiple inheritance.

how do I keep an assigned object properties when assigning to a base object?

ok Im back with another question... It seems you when you assign base objects as another object , the base object is turned into that object, but still is without its properties for example.
public class MyObjectBase {
public void Begin() {
}
{
public class OneOfMyObjects : MyObjectBase {
public void Begin() {
base.Begin();
//do stuff
}
}
public class ManagmentClass {
public MyObjectBase myCurrentObject;
//called a only one when the program starts
public void Start() {
Mymethod(new OneOfMyObjects());
}
//generic method
public void Mymethod<T>(T Objectclass) where T : MyObjectBase {
myObject = Objectclass
myObject.Begin(); // compiler error, non existent in MyObjectBase
myObject.GetType().ToString() //returns "OneOfMyObjects"
}
}
Of course, the compiler can't find "Begin()" since begin doesn't originally exists in MyBaseObject.
I'm doing a conversion between a custom language similar to Ruby to C#(above), but this Ruby-like language doesn't come across this "problem" I'm having. It seems to compile it. Is there something in .NET4 that can solve this issues that I'm forgetting?

Well, you could just use dynamic typing:
dynamic myObject;
... but your Mymethod method can't really accept any instance of a MyObjectBase... it must have a Begin method, for example. Using dynamic typing, you'll only discover when that's not the case at execution time.
Rather than directly porting some code written for a different language with different idioms, you should think about the higher level goal that code is trying to achieve, and the most idiomatic way of achieving the same goal in C#. We can't guide you on that without more information.

Give this a whirl. The issue is that you're using a base class that doesn't provide a definition of Begin(and you knew that, just reiterating). So, the thing to do is to provide a way for the base class to have a Begin() method. In the below example, MyObjectBase is an abstract class and Begin() is an abstract method. This means that MyObjectBase will never have a definition for Begin(), but it forces all derived classes to provide a definition for Begin(). So, for example:
MyObjectBase obj1 = new MyObjectBase();
obj1.Begin(); //Won't Compile
OneOfMyObjects obj2 = new OneOfMyObjects();
obj2.Begin(); //Compiles if and only if OneOfMyObjects
//class has a definition for Begin().
Also, I'm usually programming in C++ so this may not be 100% best-practice for C#, but it's compile-able. I also changed the scope of Begin. Protected is used when you want a derived class to access something in a base class, but it isn't necessarily the scope you use when dealing with something that's derived. Begin is being accessed from outside of the base and derived classes so it needs to be public.
public abstract class MyObjectBase
{
public abstract void Begin();
}
public class OneOfMyObjects : MyObjectBase
{
public override void Begin()
{
//do stuff
}
}
public class ManagmentClass
{
public MyObjectBase myCurrentObject;
//called a only one when the program starts
public void Start()
{
Mymethod(new OneOfMyObjects());
}
//generic method
public void Mymethod<T>(T Objectclass) where T : MyObjectBase {
MyObjectBase myObject = Objectclass;
myObject.Begin(); // Shouldn't throw an error any more
myObject.GetType().ToString(); //returns "OneOfMyObjects"
}
}

Why can't interfaces specify static methods?

I know this question has been asked over and over, but I can't seem to find good enough answers. So to make it clear what I'm trying to know, I'll split this in two questions:
Why can't interfaces have static method signatures? I'll try to preempt the non-answers asking why in the world I would want to do this with the following: I would want to be able to statically invoke GetDbConnectionType() on SqliteCodeGenerator and MssqlCodeGenerator:
interface ICodeGenerator
{
// this is the method I would like to be static:
string GetDbConnectionType();
}
abstract class CodeGeneratorBase : ICodeGenerator
{
public abstract string GetDbConnectionType();
public void GenerateSomeCode(StringBuilder s)
{
s.AppendLine("var foo = new " + GetDbConnectionType() + "();");
}
}
class SqliteCodeGenerator : CodeGeneratorBase
{
public override string GetDbConnectionType()
{
return "SQLiteConnection";
}
}
class MssqlCodeGenerator : CodeGeneratorBase
{
public override string GetDbConnectionType()
{
return "SqlConnection";
}
}
On the other hand, and this is the matter of this second question, if you know of a good alternative to reach the aforementioned goal, then by all means...

Suppose you could specify in an interface that a type had to have a particular static method... how would you call it? Polymorphism works through instances - whereas static members explicitly don't use instances.
Now, having said that, there's one situation in which I can see static interface members working: generic types. For example:
// This isn't valid code...
public void Foo<T>() where T : ICodeGenerator
{
string type = T.GetDbConnectionType();
}
That would call the static member on the concrete type T.
I've blogged more about this, but I suspect the benefit doesn't justify the complexity.
In terms of alternatives - usually you'd have another interface, and have separate types to implement that interface. That works well in some contexts, but not in others.

#JonSkeet: It's possible to create a static interface member in CIL, so I'm afraid your first statement is misleading. I assume it was omitted from C# as a design choice by the Microsoft team to encourage correct usage of interfaces.
The best way to get this functionality is probably with extension methods, these will allow you to add a method to all inheritors of your interface or to a specific implementation of that interface however you need to write a separate class to hold the implementation of the extension method which (if not planned for) can be easy to lose track of.

Jon's answer covers pretty much everything so my answer only includes a possible work around using the .NET configuration API. It requires a bit of syntax overhead but it does give you static access to the instance.
interface IStorage
{
void Store(string item);
}
static class Storage
{
private static readonly IStorage _instance;
static Storage()
{
var storageTypeString = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["storageTypeString"];
var storageType = Type.GetType(storageTypeString, true);
_instance = (IStorage)Activator.CreateInstance(storageType);
}
public static void Store(string item)
{
_instance.Store(item);
}
}

It might be somewhat helpful if an interface could specify a static class, such that members of that class would be seen by the compiler as static members of that interface. Thus, instead of having to use static class Enumerable<T> to get Enumerable<T>.Default, one could instead syntactically specify IEnumerable<T>.Default.
It would be even more helpful if an interface could specify that some such static methods should be usable in a fashion similar to extension methods, but without the weird scoping rules associated with them (so an interface could appear to offer multiple "convenience" overloads for some member functions without requiring all of the implementations to provide them).
It would be extremely helpful if, combined with such a feature, interface methods could be declared "optional", such that when an implementation provided a method it would be used, and when it did not the extension-ish method would be automatically substituted. This would probably require changes to the CLR, however.
In any case, because interfaces do not include static classes, the best one can do is provide static classes which users of the interface will find helpful, even though the compiler will regard those classes and the interfaces as entirely independent entities.

I know this is old, but actually you can with static functions declared in a static class outside of a name space.
but they way your putting it you would just make the function static in the abstract class
to do it from an interface you do this
public static class Interfacefunction{
public static string GetDbConnectionType(this ICodeGenerator me)
{
// this is the method I would like to be static:
// you can even get access to me
return "SQLiteConnection";
}
}

A sort of workaround (though it may actually be better this way) for this I've decided to use is to use a static instance instead of a static interface.
Rather than:
// does not compile
ISomeInterface {
static void DoSomething();
static bool TestSomething(string pValue);
// etc...
}
static class SomeStaticClass : ISomeInterface {
public static void DoSomething() {
}
public static bool TestSomething(string pValue) {
}
}
Define a class (make it generic if the logic must vary between classes that you use it with):
sealed class SomeClass {
public void DoSomething() {
// reusable implementation
}
public bool TestSomething(string pValue) {
// reusable implementation
}
}
and give a static instance of that class to your static class:
static class SomeStaticClass {
static readonly SomeClass sSomeClass = new SomeClass();
}
The only issue is that you have to decide whether to expose a property to the static instance:
static class SomeStaticClass {
static readonly SomeClass sSomeClass = new SomeClass();
public static SomeClass SomeProperty { get { return sSomeClass; } }
}
...
SomeStaticClass.SomeProperty.DoSomething();
if (SomeStaticClass.SomeProperty.TestSomething(someValue))
...
or to wrap its methods:
static class SomeStaticClass {
static readonly SomeClass sSomeClass = new SomeClass();
public static void DoSomething() {
sSomeClass.DoSomething();
}
public static bool TestSomething(string pValue) {
sSomeClass.TestSomething(pValue);
}
}
...
SomeStaticClass.DoSomething();
if (SomeStaticClass.TestSomething(someValue))
...

C# Retrieving Classname in a static method

Example:
namespace MyProgram.Testing
{
public class Test1
{
public void TestMethod()
{
String actualType = this.GetType().FullName.ToString();
return;
}
public static String GetInheritedClassName()
{
return System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().ReflectedType.FullName;
}
}
public class Test2 : Test1
{
}
public class Test3
{
String test2ClassName = Test2.GetInheritedClassName();
}
}
Anyway, I want it to return "MyProgram.Testing.Test2" but instead Test2.GetInheritedClassName() returns "MyProgram.Testing.Test1". What do I have to put into that static class to get it to return that (if possible)?

It's not possible. When you call Test2.GetInheritedClassName, it's actually Test1.GetInheritedClassName that is called, because Test2.GetInheritedClassName doesn't really exists (btw, some tools like Resharper would show a warning: Access to a static member of a type via a derived type)
Static members don't participate in inheritance, which is kind of logical since inheritance only makes sense when you're dealing with instances...

The code that's printing out the type is the base-class method. Except for rare Reflection scenarios such as you provide above, execution wouldn't be affected by whether the method is called using the derived type or the base type, so the system makes no distinction.
You could, however, get around this by defining a generic base type:
class ClassNameTesterBase<T>where T:ClassNameTester<T>
{
public static String getName() { return (typeof(T)).Name; }
}
and then defining the other types of interest:
class ClassNameTester1<T&gt : ClassNameTesterBase<T> ...
class ClassNameTester2<T&gt : ClassNameTester1<T> ...
One may then if desired define leaf classes:
class ClassNameTester1 : ClassNameTester1<ClassNameTester1> { }
class ClassNameTester2 : ClassNameTester2<ClassNameTester2> { }
One slight caveat here is that ClassNameTester2 derives its innards from from ClassNameTester1<T> but is not substitutable for anything having to do with the ClassNameTester1<ClassNameTester1>; if it's being used as a static class, though, that shouldn't be a problem.

Multiple Inheritance in C#

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
For instance I'm able to implement the missing multiple inheritance pattern using interfaces and three classes like that:
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class First:IFirst
{
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class Second:ISecond
{
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst, ISecond
{
First first = new First();
Second second = new Second();
public void FirstMethod() { first.FirstMethod(); }
public void SecondMethod() { second.SecondMethod(); }
}
Every time I add a method to one of the interfaces I need to change the class FirstAndSecond as well.
Is there a way to inject multiple existing classes into one new class like it is possible in C++?
Maybe there is a solution using some kind of code generation?
Or it may look like this (imaginary c# syntax):
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst from First, ISecond from Second
{ }
So that there won't be a need to update the class FirstAndSecond when I modify one of the interfaces.
EDIT
Maybe it would be better to consider a practical example:
You have an existing class (e.g. a text based TCP client based on ITextTcpClient) which you do already use at different locations inside your project. Now you feel the need to create a component of your class to be easy accessible for windows forms developers.
As far as I know you currently have two ways to do this:
Write a new class that is inherited from components and implements the interface of the TextTcpClient class using an instance of the class itself as shown with FirstAndSecond.
Write a new class that inherits from TextTcpClient and somehow implements IComponent (haven't actually tried this yet).
In both cases you need to do work per method and not per class. Since you know that we will need all the methods of TextTcpClient and Component it would be the easiest solution to just combine those two into one class.
To avoid conflicts this may be done by code generation where the result could be altered afterwards but typing this by hand is a pure pain in the ass.

Consider just using composition instead of trying to simulate Multiple Inheritance. You can use Interfaces to define what classes make up the composition, eg: ISteerable implies a property of type SteeringWheel, IBrakable implies a property of type BrakePedal, etc.
Once you've done that, you could use the Extension Methods feature added to C# 3.0 to further simplify calling methods on those implied properties, eg:
public interface ISteerable { SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; } }
public interface IBrakable { BrakePedal brake { get; set; } }
public class Vehicle : ISteerable, IBrakable
{
public SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; }
public BrakePedal brake { get; set; }
public Vehicle() { wheel = new SteeringWheel(); brake = new BrakePedal(); }
}
public static class SteeringExtensions
{
public static void SteerLeft(this ISteerable vehicle)
{
vehicle.wheel.SteerLeft();
}
}
public static class BrakeExtensions
{
public static void Stop(this IBrakable vehicle)
{
vehicle.brake.ApplyUntilStop();
}
}
public class Main
{
Vehicle myCar = new Vehicle();
public void main()
{
myCar.SteerLeft();
myCar.Stop();
}
}

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other languages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"
MI is a useful concept, the un-answered questions are ones like:- "What do you do when you have multiple common base classes in the different superclasses?
Perl is the only language I've ever worked with where MI works and works well. .Net may well introduce it one day but not yet, the CLR does already support MI but as I've said, there are no language constructs for it beyond that yet.
Until then you are stuck with Proxy objects and multiple Interfaces instead :(

I created a C# post-compiler that enables this kind of thing:
using NRoles;
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class RFirst : IFirst, Role {
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class RSecond : ISecond, Role {
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond : Does<RFirst>, Does<RSecond> { }
You can run the post-compiler as a Visual Studio post-build-event:
C:\some_path\nroles-v0.1.0-bin\nutate.exe "$(TargetPath)"
In the same assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.As<RFirst>().FirstMethod();
fas.As<RSecond>().SecondMethod();
In another assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.FirstMethod();
fas.SecondMethod();

You could have one abstract base class that implements both IFirst and ISecond, and then inherit from just that base.

With C# 8 now you practically have multiple inheritance via default implementation of interface members:
interface ILogger
{
void Log(LogLevel level, string message);
void Log(Exception ex) => Log(LogLevel.Error, ex.ToString()); // New overload
}
class ConsoleLogger : ILogger
{
public void Log(LogLevel level, string message) { ... }
// Log(Exception) gets default implementation
}

This is along the lines of Lawrence Wenham's answer, but depending on your use case, it may or may not be an improvement -- you don't need the setters.
public interface IPerson {
int GetAge();
string GetName();
}
public interface IGetPerson {
IPerson GetPerson();
}
public static class IGetPersonAdditions {
public static int GetAgeViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) { // I prefer to have the "ViaPerson" in the name in case the object has another Age property.
IPerson person = getPerson.GetPersion();
return person.GetAge();
}
public static string GetNameViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) {
return getPerson.GetPerson().GetName();
}
}
public class Person: IPerson, IGetPerson {
private int Age {get;set;}
private string Name {get;set;}
public IPerson GetPerson() {
return this;
}
public int GetAge() { return Age; }
public string GetName() { return Name; }
}
Now any object that knows how to get a person can implement IGetPerson, and it will automatically have the GetAgeViaPerson() and GetNameViaPerson() methods. From this point, basically all Person code goes into IGetPerson, not into IPerson, other than new ivars, which have to go into both. And in using such code, you don't have to be concerned about whether or not your IGetPerson object is itself actually an IPerson.

In my own implementation I found that using classes/interfaces for MI, although "good form", tended to be a massive over complication since you need to set up all that multiple inheritance for only a few necessary function calls, and in my case, needed to be done literally dozens of times redundantly.
Instead it was easier to simply make static "functions that call functions that call functions" in different modular varieties as a sort of OOP replacement. The solution I was working on was the "spell system" for a RPG where effects need to heavily mix-and-match function calling to give an extreme variety of spells without re-writing code, much like the example seems to indicate.
Most of the functions can now be static because I don't necessarily need an instance for spell logic, whereas class inheritance can't even use virtual or abstract keywords while static. Interfaces can't use them at all.
Coding seems way faster and cleaner this way IMO. If you're just doing functions, and don't need inherited properties, use functions.

If you can live with the restriction that the methods of IFirst and ISecond must only interact with the contract of IFirst and ISecond (like in your example)... you can do what you ask with extension methods. In practice, this is rarely the case.
public interface IFirst {}
public interface ISecond {}
public class FirstAndSecond : IFirst, ISecond
{
}
public static MultipleInheritenceExtensions
{
public static void First(this IFirst theFirst)
{
Console.WriteLine("First");
}
public static void Second(this ISecond theSecond)
{
Console.WriteLine("Second");
}
}
///
public void Test()
{
FirstAndSecond fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.First();
fas.Second();
}
So the basic idea is that you define the required implementation in the interfaces... this required stuff should support the flexible implementation in the extension methods. Anytime you need to "add methods to the interface" instead you add an extension method.

Yes using Interface is a hassle because anytime we add a method in the class we have to add the signature in the interface. Also, what if we already have a class with a bunch of methods but no Interface for it? we have to manually create Interface for all the classes that we want to inherit from. And the worst thing is, we have to implement all methods in the Interfaces in the child class if the child class is to inherit from the multiple interface.
By following Facade design pattern we can simulate inheriting from multiple classes using accessors. Declare the classes as properties with {get;set;} inside the class that need to inherit and all public properties and methods are from that class, and in the constructor of the child class instantiate the parent classes.
For example:
namespace OOP
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Child somechild = new Child();
somechild.DoHomeWork();
somechild.CheckingAround();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Father
{
public Father() { }
public void Work()
{
Console.WriteLine("working...");
}
public void Moonlight()
{
Console.WriteLine("moonlighting...");
}
}
public class Mother
{
public Mother() { }
public void Cook()
{
Console.WriteLine("cooking...");
}
public void Clean()
{
Console.WriteLine("cleaning...");
}
}
public class Child
{
public Father MyFather { get; set; }
public Mother MyMother { get; set; }
public Child()
{
MyFather = new Father();
MyMother = new Mother();
}
public void GoToSchool()
{
Console.WriteLine("go to school...");
}
public void DoHomeWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("doing homework...");
}
public void CheckingAround()
{
MyFather.Work();
MyMother.Cook();
}
}
}
with this structure class Child will have access to all methods and properties of Class Father and Mother, simulating multiple inheritance, inheriting an instance of the parent classes. Not quite the same but it is practical.

Multiple inheritance is one of those things that generally causes more problems than it solves. In C++ it fits the pattern of giving you enough rope to hang yourself, but Java and C# have chosen to go the safer route of not giving you the option. The biggest problem is what to do if you inherit multiple classes that have a method with the same signature that the inheritee doesn't implement. Which class's method should it choose? Or should that not compile? There is generally another way to implement most things that doesn't rely on multiple inheritance.

If X inherits from Y, that has two somewhat orthogonal effects:
Y will provide default functionality for X, so the code for X only has to include stuff which is different from Y.
Almost anyplace a Y would be expected, an X may be used instead.
Although inheritance provides for both features, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where either could be of use without the other. No .net language I know of has a direct way of implementing the first without the second, though one could obtain such functionality by defining a base class which is never used directly, and having one or more classes that inherit directly from it without adding anything new (such classes could share all their code, but would not be substitutable for each other). Any CLR-compliant language, however, will allow the use of interfaces which provide the second feature of interfaces (substitutability) without the first (member reuse).

i know i know
even though its not allowed and so on, sometime u actualy need it so for the those:
class a {}
class b : a {}
class c : b {}
like in my case i wanted to do this
class b : Form (yep the windows.forms)
class c : b {}
cause half of the function were identical and with interface u must rewrite them all

Since the question of multiple inheritance (MI) pops up from time to time, I'd like to add an approach which addresses some problems with the composition pattern.
I build upon the IFirst, ISecond,First, Second, FirstAndSecond approach, as it was presented in the question. I reduce sample code to IFirst, since the pattern stays the same regardless of the number of interfaces / MI base classes.
Lets assume, that with MI First and Second would both derive from the same base class BaseClass, using only public interface elements from BaseClass
This can be expressed, by adding a container reference to BaseClass in the First and Second implementation:
class First : IFirst {
private BaseClass ContainerInstance;
First(BaseClass container) { ContainerInstance = container; }
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
}
...
Things become more complicated, when protected interface elements from BaseClass are referenced or when First and Second would be abstract classes in MI, requiring their subclasses to implement some abstract parts.
class BaseClass {
protected void DoStuff();
}
abstract class First : IFirst {
public void FirstMethod() { DoStuff(); DoSubClassStuff(); }
protected abstract void DoStuff(); // base class reference in MI
protected abstract void DoSubClassStuff(); // sub class responsibility
}
C# allows nested classes to access protected/private elements of their containing classes, so this can be used to link the abstract bits from the First implementation.
class FirstAndSecond : BaseClass, IFirst, ISecond {
// link interface
private class PartFirst : First {
private FirstAndSecond ContainerInstance;
public PartFirst(FirstAndSecond container) {
ContainerInstance = container;
}
// forwarded references to emulate access as it would be with MI
protected override void DoStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
protected override void DoSubClassStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoSubClassStuff(); }
}
private IFirst partFirstInstance; // composition object
public FirstMethod() { partFirstInstance.FirstMethod(); } // forwarded implementation
public FirstAndSecond() {
partFirstInstance = new PartFirst(this); // composition in constructor
}
// same stuff for Second
//...
// implementation of DoSubClassStuff
private void DoSubClassStuff() { Console.WriteLine("Private method accessed"); }
}
There is quite some boilerplate involved, but if the actual implementation of FirstMethod and SecondMethod are sufficiently complex and the amount of accessed private/protected methods is moderate, then this pattern may help to overcome lacking multiple inheritance.