Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

Page 15/41 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • C# to Java: where T : new() Syntax

    - by Shiftbit
    I am porting some C# code over to Java. I am having trouble with the where Syntax, specifically new(). I understand that where is similar to Java's generic: T extends FOO. How I can replicate the new() argument in Java? "The new() Constraint lets the compiler know that any type argument supplied must have an accessible parameterless--or default-- constructor." - MSDN ie: public class BAR<T> : BAR where T : FOO, new() Right now I have: public class BAR<T extends FOO> extends ABSTRACTBAR { public HXIT(T t){ this.value = t; } .... }

    Read the article

  • Binary comparison operators on generic types

    - by Brian Triplett
    I have a generic class that takes a type T. Within this class I have a method were I need to compare a type T to another type T such as: public class MyClass<T> { public T MaxValue { // Implimentation for MaxValue } public T MyMethod(T argument) { if(argument > this.MaxValue) { // Then do something } } } The comparison operation inside of MyMethod fails with Compiler Error CS0019. Is it possible to add a constraint to T to make this work? I tried adding a where T: IComparable<T> to the class definition to no avail.

    Read the article

  • Castle Windsor - Resolving a generic implementation to a base type

    - by arootbeer
    I'm trying to use Windsor as a factory to provide specification implementations based on subtypes of XAbstractBase (an abstract message base class in my case). I have code like the following: public abstract class XAbstractBase { } public class YImplementation : XAbstractBase { } public class ZImplementation : XAbstractBase { } public interface ISpecification<T> where T : XAbstractBase { bool PredicateLogic(); } public class DefaultSpecificationImplementation : ISpecification<XAbstractBase> { public bool PredicateLogic() { return true; } } public class SpecificSpecificationImplementation : ISpecification<YImplementation> { public bool PredicateLogic() { /*do real work*/ } } My component registration code looks like this: container.Register( AllTypes.FromAssembly(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()) .BasedOn(typeof(ISpecification<>)) .WithService.FirstInterface() ) This works fine when I try to resolve ISpecification<YImplementation>; it correctly resolves SpecificSpecificationImplementation. However, when I try to resolve ISpecification<ZImplementation> Windsor throws an exception: "No component for supporting the service ISpecification'1[ZImplementation, AssemblyInfo...] was found" Does Windsor support resolving generic implementations down to base classes if no more specific implementation is registered?

    Read the article

  • Covariance and Contravariance inference in C# 4.0

    - by devoured elysium
    When we define our interfaces in C# 4.0, we are allowed to mark each of the generic parameters as in or out. If we try to set a generic parameter as out and that'd lead to a problem, the compiler raises an error, not allowing us to do that. Question: If the compiler has ways of inferring what are valid uses for both covariance (out) and contravariance(in), why do we have to mark interfaces as such? Wouldn't it be enough to just let us define the interfaces as we always did, and when we tried to use them in our client code, raise an error if we tried to use them in an un-safe way? Example: interface MyInterface<out T> { T abracadabra(); } //works OK interface MyInterface2<in T> { T abracadabra(); } //compiler raises an error. //This makes me think that the compiler is cappable //of understanding what situations might generate //run-time problems and then prohibits them. Also, isn't it what Java does in the same situation? From what I recall, you just do something like IMyInterface<? extends whatever> myInterface; //covariance IMyInterface<? super whatever> myInterface2; //contravariance Or am I mixing things? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Partial generic type inference possible in C#?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I am working on rewriting my fluent interface for my IoC class library, and when I refactored some code in order to share some common functionality through a base class, I hit upon a snag. Note: This is something I want to do, not something I have to do. If I have to make do with a different syntax, I will, but if anyone has an idea on how to make my code compile the way I want it, it would be most welcome. I want some extension methods to be available for a specific base-class, and these methods should be generic, with one generic type, related to an argument to the method, but the methods should also return a specific type related to the particular descendant they're invoked upon. Better with a code example than the above description methinks. Here's a simple and complete example of what doesn't work: using System; namespace ConsoleApplication16 { public class ParameterizedRegistrationBase { } public class ConcreteTypeRegistration : ParameterizedRegistrationBase { public void SomethingConcrete() { } } public class DelegateRegistration : ParameterizedRegistrationBase { public void SomethingDelegated() { } } public static class Extensions { public static ParameterizedRegistrationBase Parameter<T>( this ParameterizedRegistrationBase p, string name, T value) { return p; } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { ConcreteTypeRegistration ct = new ConcreteTypeRegistration(); ct .Parameter<int>("age", 20) .SomethingConcrete(); // <-- this is not available DelegateRegistration del = new DelegateRegistration(); del .Parameter<int>("age", 20) .SomethingDelegated(); // <-- neither is this } } } If you compile this, you'll get: 'ConsoleApplication16.ParameterizedRegistrationBase' does not contain a definition for 'SomethingConcrete' and no extension method 'SomethingConcrete'... 'ConsoleApplication16.ParameterizedRegistrationBase' does not contain a definition for 'SomethingDelegated' and no extension method 'SomethingDelegated'... What I want is for the extension method (Parameter<T>) to be able to be invoked on both ConcreteTypeRegistration and DelegateRegistration, and in both cases the return type should match the type the extension was invoked on. The problem is as follows: I would like to write: ct.Parameter<string>("name", "Lasse") ^------^ notice only one generic argument but also that Parameter<T> returns an object of the same type it was invoked on, which means: ct.Parameter<string>("name", "Lasse").SomethingConcrete(); ^ ^-------+-------^ | | +---------------------------------------------+ .SomethingConcrete comes from the object in "ct" which in this case is of type ConcreteTypeRegistration Is there any way I can trick the compiler into making this leap for me? If I add two generic type arguments to the Parameter method, type inference forces me to either provide both, or none, which means this: public static TReg Parameter<TReg, T>( this TReg p, string name, T value) where TReg : ParameterizedRegistrationBase gives me this: Using the generic method 'ConsoleApplication16.Extensions.Parameter<TReg,T>(TReg, string, T)' requires 2 type arguments Using the generic method 'ConsoleApplication16.Extensions.Parameter<TReg,T>(TReg, string, T)' requires 2 type arguments Which is just as bad. I can easily restructure the classes, or even make the methods non-extension-methods by introducing them into the hierarchy, but my question is if I can avoid having to duplicate the methods for the two descendants, and in some way declare them only once, for the base class. Let me rephrase that. Is there a way to change the classes in the first code example above, so that the syntax in the Main-method can be kept, without duplicating the methods in question? The code will have to be compatible with both C# 3.0 and 4.0. Edit: The reason I'd rather not leave both generic type arguments to inference is that for some services, I want to specify a parameter value for a constructor parameter that is of one type, but pass in a value that is a descendant. For the moment, matching of specified argument values and the correct constructor to call is done using both the name and the type of the argument. Let me give an example: ServiceContainerBuilder.Register<ISomeService>(r => r .From(f => f.ConcreteType<FileService>(ct => ct .Parameter<Stream>("source", new FileStream(...))))); ^--+---^ ^---+----^ | | | +- has to be a descendant of Stream | +- has to match constructor of FileService If I leave both to type inference, the parameter type will be FileStream, not Stream.

    Read the article

  • Holding value in collection

    - by Amit Ranjan
    I have a application which is on timesheet. I have total of 54 columns out of which 10 columns are visible rest invisible. First 3 columns are Project, MileStone and Classes. Rest are Sun- Sat work hrs. Now I have a column named 'taskid' as SunTaskID,MonTaskID and so on till SatTaskID for holding each days taskid. Now on the selection of SunHrs (Sunday's Work Hrs), i retrieve that days taskid and on the basis of task id i retrieve attachments which is displayed under a listbox. Now the problem is that since a day can have multiple attachments and a user can attach multiple attachments at time. He can enter values from grid to. Grid cells are editable. I am using BindingList(of TaskClass) in VB.Net for binding grid. I have total 54 properties n my task class. So i want to what property do i need to hod each days attachment and in what way. Earlier I tried Dictionary. But i was not aware of its usage as a property so i gave. Then prepared a separate class for attachment but, it was difficult to synchronize the existing attachments with taskid...

    Read the article

  • Is this a good way to expose generic base class methods through an interface?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I am trying to provide an interface to an abstract generic base class. I want to have a method exposed on the interface that consumes the generic type, but whose implementation is ultimately handled by the classes that inherit from my abstract generic base. However I don't want the subclasses to have to downcast to work with the generic type (as they already know what the type should be). Here is a simple version of the only way I can see to get it to work at the moment. public interface IFoo { void Process(Bar_base bar); } public abstract class FooBase<T> : IFoo where T : Bar_base { abstract void Process(T bar); // Explicit IFoo Implementation void IFoo.Process(Bar_base bar) { if (bar == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(); // Downcast here in base class (less for subclasses to worry about) T downcasted_bar = bar as T; if (downcasted_bar == null) { throw new InvalidOperationException( string.Format("Expected type '{0}', not type '{1}'", T.ToString(), bar.GetType().ToString()); } //Process downcasted object. Process(downcasted_bar); } } Then subclasses of FooBase would look like this... public class Foo_impl1 : FooBase<Bar_impl1> { void override Process(Bar_impl1 bar) { //No need to downcast here! } } Obviously this won't provide me compile time Type Checking, but I think it will get the job done... Questions: 1. Will this function as I think it will? 2. Is this the best way to do this? 3. What are the issues with doing it this way? 4. Can you suggest a different approach? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Testing a Generic Class

    - by Jonas Gorauskas
    More than a question, per se, this is an attempt to compare notes with other people. I wrote a generic History class that emulates the functionality of a browser's history. I am trying to wrap my head around how far to go when writing unit tests for it. I am using NUnit. Please share your testing approaches below. The full code for the History class is here (http://pastebin.com/ZGKK2V84).

    Read the article

  • Getting the constructor of an Interface Type through reflection, is there a better approach than loo

    - by Will Marcouiller
    I have written a generic type: IDirectorySource<T> where T : IDirectoryEntry, which I'm using to manage Active Directory entries through my interfaces objects: IGroup, IOrganizationalUnit, IUser. So that I can write the following: IDirectorySource<IGroup> groups = new DirectorySource<IGroup>(); // Where IGroup implements `IDirectoryEntry`, of course.` foreach (IGroup g in groups.ToList()) { listView1.Items.Add(g.Name).SubItems.Add(g.Description); } From the IDirectorySource<T>.ToList() methods, I use reflection to find out the appropriate constructor for the type parameter T. However, since T is given an interface type, it cannot find any constructor at all! Of course, I have an internal class Group : IGroup which implements the IGroup interface. No matter how hard I have tried, I can't figure out how to get the constructor out of my interface through my implementing class. [DirectorySchemaAttribute("group")] public interface IGroup { } internal class Group : IGroup { internal Group(DirectoryEntry entry) { NativeEntry = entry; Domain = NativeEntry.Path; } // Implementing IGroup interface... } Within the ToList() method of my IDirectorySource<T> interface implementation, I look for the constructor of T as follows: internal class DirectorySource<T> : IDirectorySource<T> { // Implementing properties... // Methods implementations... public IList<T> ToList() { Type t = typeof(T) // Let's assume we're always working with the IGroup interface as T here to keep it simple. // So, my `DirectorySchema` property is already set to "group". // My `DirectorySearcher` is already instantiated here, as I do it within the DirectorySource<T> constructor. Searcher.Filter = string.Format("(&(objectClass={0}))", DirectorySchema) ConstructorInfo ctor = null; ParameterInfo[] params = null; // This is where I get stuck for now... Please see the helper method. GetConstructor(out ctor, out params, new Type() { DirectoryEntry }); SearchResultCollection results = null; try { results = Searcher.FindAll(); } catch (DirectoryServicesCOMException ex) { // Handling exception here... } foreach (SearchResult entry in results) entities.Add(ctor.Invoke(new object() { entry.GetDirectoryEntry() })); return entities; } } private void GetConstructor(out ConstructorInfo constructor, out ParameterInfo[] parameters, Type paramsTypes) { Type t = typeof(T); ConstructorInfo[] ctors = t.GetConstructors(BindingFlags.CreateInstance | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod); bool found = true; foreach (ContructorInfo c in ctors) { parameters = c.GetParameters(); if (parameters.GetLength(0) == paramsTypes.GetLength(0)) { for (int index = 0; index < parameters.GetLength(0); ++index) { if (!(parameters[index].GetType() is paramsTypes[index].GetType())) found = false; } if (found) { constructor = c; return; } } } // Processing constructor not found message here... } My problem is that T will always be an interface, so it never finds a constructor. Is there a better way than looping through all of my assembly types for implementations of my interface? I don't care about rewriting a piece of my code, I want to do it right on the first place so that I won't need to come back again and again and again. EDIT #1 Following Sam's advice, I will for now go with the IName and Name convention. However, is it me or there's some way to improve my code? Thanks! =)

    Read the article

  • Create method to handle multiple types of controls

    - by Praesagus
    I am trying to create a method that accepts multiple types of controls - in this case Labels and Panels. The conversion does not work because IConvertible doesn't convert these Types. Any help would be so appreciated. Thanks in advance public void LocationsLink<C>(C control) { if (control != null) { WebControl ctl = (WebControl)Convert.ChangeType(control, typeof(WebControl)); Literal txt = new Literal(); HyperLink lnk = new HyperLink(); txt.Text = "If you prefer a map to the nearest facility please "; lnk.Text = "click here"; lnk.NavigateUrl = "/content/Locations.aspx"; ctl.Controls.Add(txt); ctl.Controls.Add(lnk); } }

    Read the article

  • How can I improve this design?

    - by klausbyskov
    Let's assume that our system can perform actions, and that an action requires some parameters to do its work. I have defined the following base class for all actions (simplified for your reading pleasure): public abstract class BaseBusinessAction<TActionParameters> : where TActionParameters : IActionParameters { protected BaseBusinessAction(TActionParameters actionParameters) { if (actionParameters == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("actionParameters"); this.Parameters = actionParameters; if (!ParametersAreValid()) throw new ArgumentException("Valid parameters must be supplied", "actionParameters"); } protected TActionParameters Parameters { get; private set; } protected abstract bool ParametersAreValid(); public void CommonMethod() { ... } } Only a concrete implementation of BaseBusinessAction knows how to validate that the parameters passed to it are valid, and therefore the ParametersAreValid is an abstract function. However, I want the base class constructor to enforce that the parameters passed are always valid, so I've added a call to ParametersAreValid to the constructor and I throw an exception when the function returns false. So far so good, right? Well, no. Code analysis is telling me to "not call overridable methods in constructors" which actually makes a lot of sense because when the base class's constructor is called the child class's constructor has not yet been called, and therefore the ParametersAreValid method may not have access to some critical member variable that the child class's constructor would set. So the question is this: How do I improve this design? Do I add a Func<bool, TActionParameters> parameter to the base class constructor? If I did: public class MyAction<MyParameters> { public MyAction(MyParameters actionParameters, bool something) : base(actionParameters, ValidateIt) { this.something = something; } private bool something; public static bool ValidateIt() { return something; } } This would work because ValidateIt is static, but I don't know... Is there a better way? Comments are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • java.lang.Void in C#?

    - by user313661
    Hi, I am currently working with .Net 2.0 and have an interface whose generic type is used to define a method's return type. Something like interface IExecutor<T> { T Execute() { ... } } My problem is that some classes that implement this interface do not really need to return anything. In Java you can use java.lang.Void for this purpose, but after quite a bit of searching I found no equivalent in C#. More generically, I also did not find a good way around this problem. I tried to find how people would do this with delegates, but found nothing either - which makes me believe that the problem is that I suck at searching :) So what's the best way to solve this? How would you do it? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What about optional generic type parameters in C# 5.0?

    - by Lars Corneliussen
    Just a thought. Wouldn't it be useful to have optional type parameters in C#? This would make life simpler. I'm tired of having multiple classes with the same name, but different type parameters. Also VS doesn't support this very vell (file names) :-) This would eliminate the need for a non-generic IEnumerable: interface IEnumerable<out T=object>{ IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() } What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Can protobuf-net serialize this combination of interface and generic collection?

    - by tsupe
    I am trying to serialize a ItemTransaction and protobuf-net (r282) is having a problem. ItemTransaction : IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<Type, IItemCollection>></code> and ItemCollection is like this: FooCollection : ItemCollection<Foo> ItemCollection<T> : BindingList<T>, IItemCollection IItemCollection : IList<Item> where T is a derived type of Item. ItemCollection also has a property of type IItemCollection. I am serializing like this: IItemCollection itemCol = someService.Blah(...); ... SerializeWithLengthPrefix<IItemCollection>(stream, itemCol, PrefixStyle.Base128); My eventual goal is to serialize ItemTransaction, but am snagged with IItemCollection. Item and it's derived types can be [de]serialized with no issues, see [1], but deserializing an IItemCollection fails (serializing works). ItemCollection has a ItemExpression property and when deserializing protobuf can't create an abstract class. This makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how to get through it. ItemExpression<T> : ItemExpression, IItemExpression ItemExpression : Expression ItemExpression is abstract as is Expression How do I get this to work properly? Also, I am concerned that ItemTransaction will fail since the IItemCollections are going to be differing and unknown at compile time (an ItemTransaction will have FooCollection, BarCollection, FlimCollection, FlamCollection, etc). What am I missing (Marc) ? [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2276104/protobuf-net-deserializing-across-assembly-boundaries

    Read the article

  • Why is it impossible to declare extension methods in a generic static class?

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'd like to create a lot of extension methods for some generic class, e.g. for public class SimpleLinkedList<T> where T:IComparable And I've started creating methods like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions { public static T[] ToArray<T>(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) where T:IComparable { //// code } } But when I tried to make LinkedListExtensions class generic like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions<T> where T:IComparable { public static T[] ToArray(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) { ////code } } I get "Extension methods can only be declared in non-generic, non-nested static class". And I'm trying to guess where this restriction came from and have no ideas.

    Read the article

  • How to bind data from a view of type List<List<MyViewModelClass>>?

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I have a strong type view of type List<List<MyViewModelClass>> The outer list will always have two lists of List<MyViewModelClass>. For each of the two outer lists I want to display a group of checkboxes. Each set can have an arbitrary number of choices. My view model class looks similar to this: public class MyViewModelClass { public Area Area { get; set; } public bool IsGeneric { get; set; } public string Code { get; set; } public bool IsChecked { get; set; } } So the final view will look something like: Please select those that apply: First set of choices: x Option 1 x Option 2 x Option 3 etc. Second set of choices: x Second Option 1 x Second Option 2 x Second Option 3 x Second Option 4 etc. Checkboxes should display MyViewModelClass.Area.Name, and their value should be related to MyViewModelClass.Area.Id. Checked state is of course related to MyViewModel.IsChecked. Question I wonder how should I use Html.CheckBox() or Html.CheckBoxFor() helper to display my checkboxes? I have to get these values back to the server on a postback of course. If it makes things simpler, I could make a separate view model type like: public class Options { public List<MyViewModelClass> General { get; set; } public List<MyViewModelClass> Others { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • In VB.NET how do you specify Inherits/implements on a generic class with multi-constraints

    - by Romel Evans
    When I write the following statement in VB.Net (C# is my normal language), I get an "end of statement expected" referring to the "Implements" statement. <Serializable()> _ <XmlSchemaProvider("EtgSchema")> _ Public Class SerializeableEntity(Of T As {Class, ISerializable, New}) _ Implements IXmlSerializable, ISerializable ... End Class The C# version that I'm trying to emulate is: [Serializable] [XmlSchemaProvider("MySchema")] public class SerializableEntity<T> : IXmlSerializable, ISerializable where T : class, new() { .... } Sometimes I feel like I have 5 thumbs with VB.NET :)

    Read the article

  • Access generic type parameter at runtime?

    - by Bart van Heukelom
    Event dispatcher interface public interface EventDispatcher { <T> EventListener<T> addEventListener(EventListener<T> l); <T> void removeEventListener(EventListener<T> l); } Implementation public class DefaultEventDispatcher implements EventDispatcher { @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") private Map<Class, Set<EventListener>> listeners = new HashMap<Class, Set<EventListener>>(); public void addSupportedEvent(Class eventType) { listeners.put(eventType, new HashSet<EventListener>()); } @Override public <T> EventListener<T> addEventListener(EventListener<T> l) { Set<EventListener> lsts = listeners.get(T); // ****** error: cannot resolve T if (lsts == null) throw new RuntimeException("Unsupported event type"); if (!lsts.add(l)) throw new RuntimeException("Listener already added"); return l; } @Override public <T> void removeEventListener(EventListener<T> l) { Set<EventListener> lsts = listeners.get(T); // ************* same error if (lsts == null) throw new RuntimeException("Unsupported event type"); if (!lsts.remove(l)) throw new RuntimeException("Listener is not here"); } } Usage EventListener<ShapeAddEvent> l = addEventListener(new EventListener<ShapeAddEvent>() { @Override public void onEvent(ShapeAddEvent event) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } }); removeEventListener(l); I've marked two errors with a comment above (in the implementation). Is there any way to get runtime access to this information?

    Read the article

  • List<T> and IEnumerable difference

    - by Jonas Elfström
    While implementing this generic merge sort, as a kind of Code Kata, I stumbled on a difference between IEnumerable and List that I need help to figure out. Here's the MergeSort public class MergeSort<T> { public IEnumerable<T> Sort(IEnumerable<T> arr) { if (arr.Count() <= 1) return arr; int middle = arr.Count() / 2; var left = arr.Take(middle).ToList(); var right = arr.Skip(middle).ToList(); return Merge(Sort(left), Sort(right)); } private static IEnumerable<T> Merge(IEnumerable<T> left, IEnumerable<T> right) { var arrSorted = new List<T>(); while (left.Count() > 0 && right.Count() > 0) { if (Comparer<T>.Default.Compare(left.First(), right.First()) < 0) { arrSorted.Add(left.First()); left=left.Skip(1); } else { arrSorted.Add(right.First()); right=right.Skip(1); } } return arrSorted.Concat(left).Concat(right); } } If I remove the .ToList() on the left and right variables it fails to sort correctly. Do you see why? Example var ints = new List<int> { 5, 8, 2, 1, 7 }; var mergeSortInt = new MergeSort<int>(); var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); With .ToList() [0]: 1 [1]: 2 [2]: 5 [3]: 7 [4]: 8 Without .ToList() [0]: 1 [1]: 2 [2]: 5 [3]: 7 [4]: 2 Edit It was my stupid test that got me. I tested it like this: var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); ints.Sort(); if (Enumerable.SequenceEqual(ints, sortedInts)) Console.WriteLine("ints sorts ok"); just changing the first row to var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints).ToList(); removes the problem (and the lazy evaluation). EDIT 2010-12-29 I thought I would figure out just how the lazy evaluation messes things up here but I just don't get it. Remove the .ToList() in the Sort method above like this var left = arr.Take(middle); var right = arr.Skip(middle); then try this var ints = new List<int> { 5, 8, 2 }; var mergeSortInt = new MergeSort<int>(); var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); ints.Sort(); if (Enumerable.SequenceEqual(ints, sortedInts)) Console.WriteLine("ints sorts ok"); When debugging You can see that before ints.Sort() a sortedInts.ToList() returns [0]: 2 [1]: 5 [2]: 8 but after ints.Sort() it returns [0]: 2 [1]: 5 [2]: 5 What is really happening here?

    Read the article

  • CreateDelegate with unknown types

    - by Giorgi
    Hello, I am trying to create Delegate for reading/writing properties of unknown type of class at runtime. I have a generic class Main<T> and a method which looks like this: Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T, object>), get) where get is a MethodInfo of the property that should be read. The problem is that when the property returns int (I guess this happens for value types) the above code throws ArgumentException because the method cannot be bound. In case of string it works well. To solve the problem I changed the code so that corresponding Delegate type is generated by using MakeGenericType. So now the code is: Type func = typeof(Func<,>); Type generic = func.MakeGenericType(typeof(T), get.ReturnType); var result = Delegate.CreateDelegate(generic, get) The problem now is that the created delegate instance of generic so I have to use DynamicInvoke which would be as slow as using pure reflection to read the field. So my question is why is that the first snippet of code fails with value types. According to MSDN it should work as it says that The return type of a delegate is compatible with the return type of a method if the return type of the method is more restrictive than the return type of the delegate and how to execute the delegate in the second snippet so that it is faster than reflection. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Best way to translate from IDictionary to a generic IDictionary

    - by George Mauer
    I've got an IDictionary field that I would like to expose via a property of type IDictionary<string, dynamic> the conversion is surprisingly difficult since I have no idea what I can .Cast<>() the IDictionary to. Best I've got: IDictionary properties; protected virtual IDictionary<string, dynamic> Properties { get { return _properties.Keys.Cast<string>() .ToDictionary(name=>name, name=> _properties[name] as dynamic); } }

    Read the article

  • .NET template class instance - passing a variable data type

    - by FerretallicA
    As the title suggests, I'm tyring to pass a variable data type to a template class. Something like this: frmExample = New LookupForm(Of Models.MyClass) 'Works fine Dim SelectedType As Type = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType() 'Works fine frmExample = New LookupForm(Of SelectedType) 'Ba-bow! frmExample = New LookupForm(Of InstanceOfMyClass.GetType()) 'Ba-bow! LookupForm<Models.MyClass> frmExample; Type SelectedType = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType(); frmExample = new LookupForm<SelectedType.GetType()>(); //Ba-bow frmExample = new LookupForm<(Type)SelectedType>(); //Ba-bow I'm assuming it's something to do with the template being processed at compile time but even if I'm off the mark there, it wouldn't solve my problem anyway. I can't find any relevant information on using Reflection to instance template classes either. (How) can I create an instance of a dynamically typed repository at runtime?

    Read the article

  • Best Practice - Removing item from generic collection in C#

    - by Matt Davis
    I'm using C# in Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3.5. I have a generic dictionary that maps types of events to a generic list of subscribers. A subscriber can be subscribed to more than one event. private static Dictionary<EventType, List<ISubscriber>> _subscriptions; To remove a subscriber from the subscription list, I can use either of these two options. Option 1: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { if (_subscriptions[event].Contains(subscriber)) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } } Option 2: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } I have two questions. First, notice that Option 1 checks for existence before removing the item, while Option 2 uses a brute force removal since Remove() does not throw an exception. Of these two, which is the preferred, "best-practice" way to do this? Second, is there another, "cleaner," more elegant way to do this, perhaps with a lambda expression or using a LINQ extension? I'm still getting acclimated to these two features. Thanks. EDIT Just to clarify, I realize that the choice between Options 1 and 2 is a choice of speed (Option 2) versus maintainability (Option 1). In this particular case, I'm not necessarily trying to optimize the code, although that is certainly a worthy consideration. What I'm trying to understand is if there is a generally well-established practice for doing this. If not, which option would you use in your own code?

    Read the article

  • sOperator as and generic classes

    - by abatishchev
    I'm writing .NET On-the-Fly compiler for CLR scripting and want execution method make generic acceptable: object Execute() { return type.InvokeMember(..); } T Execute<T>() { return Execute() as T; /* doesn't work: The type parameter 'T' cannot be used with the 'as' operator because it does not have a class type constraint nor a 'class' constraint */ // also neither typeof(T) not T.GetType(), so on are possible return (T) Execute(); // ok } But I think operator as will be very useful: if result type isn't T method will return null, instead of an exception! Is it possible to do?

    Read the article

  • Why does a function that takes IEnumerable<interface> not accept IEnumerable<class>?

    - by Matt Whitfield
    Say, for instance, I have a class: public class MyFoo : IMyBar { ... } Then, I would want to use the following code: List<MyFoo> classList = new List<MyFoo>(); classList.Add(new MyFoo(1)); classList.Add(new MyFoo(2)); classList.Add(new MyFoo(3)); List<IMyBar> interfaceList = new List<IMyBar>(classList); But this produces the error: `Argument '1': cannot convert from 'IEnumerable<MyFoo>' to 'IEnumerable<IMyBar>' Why is this? Since MyFoo implements IMyBar, one would expect that an IEnumerable of MyFoo could be treated as an IEnumerable of IMyBar. A mundane real-world example being producing a list of cars, and then being told that it wasn't a list of vehicles. It's only a minor annoyance, but if anyone can shed some light on this, I would be much obliged.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >