Search Results

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

Page 21/41 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • How do I configure StructureMap to use a generic repository?

    - by simonjreid
    I have an interface IGenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : IEntity and an implementation GenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : Entity. I'm trying to inject a specific IGenericRepository<Section> into a class using StructureMap: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => { x.For(typeof(IGenericRepository<>)).Use(typeof(GenericRepository<>)); }); But when I try to use ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IGenericRepository<Section>>(); I get: StructureMap Exception Code: 202 No Default Instance defined for PluginFamily System.Data.Common.DbConnection Any ideas why this is or what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance, Simon

    Read the article

  • Typesafe fire-and-forget asynchronous delegate invocation in C#

    - by LBushkin
    I recently found myself needing a typesafe "fire-and-forget" mechanism for running code asynchronously. Ideally, what I would want to do is something like: var myAction = (Action)(() => Console.WriteLine("yada yada")); myAction.FireAndForget(); // async invocation Unfortunately, the obvious choice of calling BeginInvoke() without a corresponding EndInvoke() does not work - it results in a slow resource leak (since the asyn state is held by the runtime and never released ... it's expecting an eventual call to EndInvoke(). I also can't run the code on the .NET thread pool because it may take a very long time to complete (it's advised to only run relatively short-lived code on the thread pool) - this makes it impossible to use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). Initially, I only needed this behavior for methods whose signature matches Action, Action<...>, or Func<...>. So I put together a set of extension methods (see listing below) that let me do this without running into the resource leak. There are overloads for each version of Action/Func. Unfortunately, I now want to port this code to .NET 4 where the number of generic parameters on Action and Func have been increased substantially. Before I write a T4 script to generate these, I was also hoping to find a simpler more elegant way to do this. Any ideas are welcome. public static class AsyncExt { public static void FireAndForget( this Action action ) { action.BeginInvoke(OnActionCompleted, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1>( this Action<T1> action, T1 arg1 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnActionCompleted<T1>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,T2>( this Action<T1,T2> action, T1 arg1, T2 arg2 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, arg2, OnActionCompleted<T1, T2>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<TResult>(this Func<TResult> func, TResult arg1) { func.BeginInvoke(OnFuncCompleted<TResult>, func); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,TResult>(this Func<T1, TResult> action, T1 arg1) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>, action); } // more overloads of FireAndForget<..>() for Action<..> and Func<..> private static void OnActionCompleted( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1>( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action<T1>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1,T2>(IAsyncResult result) { var action = (Action<T1,T2>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<TResult>( IAsyncResult result ) { var func = (Func<TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>(IAsyncResult result) { var func = (Func<T1, TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke(result); } // more overloads of OnActionCompleted<> and OnFuncCompleted<> }

    Read the article

  • Wildcards vs. generic methods

    - by FredOverflow
    Is there any practical difference between the following approaches to print all elements in a range? public static void printA(Iterable<?> range) { for (Object o : range) { System.out.println(o); } } public static <T> void printB(Iterable<T> range) { for (T x : range) { System.out.println(x); } } Apparently, printB involves an additional checked cast to Object (see line 16), which seems rather stupid to me -- isn't everything an Object anyway? public static void printA(java.lang.Iterable); Code: 0: aload_0 1: invokeinterface #18, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/lang/Iterable.iterator:()Ljava/util/Iterator; 6: astore_2 7: goto 24 10: aload_2 11: invokeinterface #24, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.next:()Ljava/lang/Object; 16: astore_1 17: getstatic #30; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 20: aload_1 21: invokevirtual #36; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V 24: aload_2 25: invokeinterface #42, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.hasNext:()Z 30: ifne 10 33: return public static void printB(java.lang.Iterable); Code: 0: aload_0 1: invokeinterface #18, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/lang/Iterable.iterator:()Ljava/util/Iterator; 6: astore_2 7: goto 27 10: aload_2 11: invokeinterface #24, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.next:()Ljava/lang/Object; 16: checkcast #3; //class java/lang/Object 19: astore_1 20: getstatic #30; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream; 23: aload_1 24: invokevirtual #36; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/Object;)V 27: aload_2 28: invokeinterface #42, 1; //InterfaceMethod java/util/Iterator.hasNext:()Z 33: ifne 10 36: return

    Read the article

  • Java. Best procedure to de-serialize a Java generic object?

    - by Jake
    What is the best procedure for storing and retrieving, using native Java serialization, generic objects like ArrayList<String>? Edit: To clarify. When I serialize an object of type ArrayList<String> I'd like to de-serialize to the same type of object. However, I know of no way to cast back to this generic object without causing warnings.

    Read the article

  • Namespace constraint with generic class decleration

    - by SomeGuy
    Good afternoon people, I would like to know if (and if so how) it is possible to define a namespace as a constraint parameter in a generic class declaration. What I have is this: namespace MyProject.Models.Entities <-- Contains my classes to be persisted in db namespace MyProject.Tests.BaseTest <-- Obvious i think Now the decleration of my 'BaseTest' class looks like so; public class BaseTest<T> This BaseTest does little more (at the time of writing) than remove all entities that were added to the database during testing. So typically I will have a test class declared as: public class MyEntityRepositoryTest : BaseTest<MyEntity> What i would LIKE to do is something similar to the following: public class BaseTest<T> where T : <is of the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace> Now i am aware that it would be entirely possible to simply declare a 'BaseEntity' class from which all entities created within the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace will inherit from; public class BaseTest<T> where T : MyBaseEntity but...I dont actually need to, or want to. Plus I am using an ORM and mapping entities with inheritance, although possible, adds a layer of complexity that is not required. So, is it possible to constrain a generic class parameter to a namespace and not a specific type ? Thank you for your time.

    Read the article

  • Using reflection to find all linq2sql tables and ensure they match the database

    - by Jake Stevenson
    I'm trying to use reflection to automatically test that all my linq2sql entities match the test database. I thought I'd do this by getting all the classes that inherit from DataContext from my assembly: var contexttypes = Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof (BaseRepository<,>)).GetTypes().Where( t => t.IsSubclassOf(typeof(DataContext))); foreach (var contexttype in contexttypes) { var context = Activator.CreateInstance(contexttype); var tableProperties = type.GetProperties().Where(t=> t.PropertyType.Name == typeof(ITable<>).Name); foreach (var propertyInfo in tableProperties) { var table = (propertyInfo.GetValue(context, null)); } } So far so good, this loops through each ITable< in each datacontext in the project. If I debug the code, "table" is properly instantiated, and if I expand the results view in the debugger I can see actual data. BUT, I can't figure out how to get my code to actually query that table. I'd really like to just be able to do table.FirstOrDefault() to get the top row out of each table and make sure the SQL fetch doesn't fail. But I cant cast that table to be anything I can query. Any suggestions on how I can make this queryable? Just the ability to call .Count() would be enough for me to ensure the entities don't have anything that doesn't match the table columns.

    Read the article

  • C# - Dictionary with generic array as value

    - by alhazen
    In my class, I want to use a dictionary with the following declaration: Dictionary<string, T[]> Since the operations of my class are exactly the same for all generic types, I do not wish to define my class as generic (which means I would have to create a separate instance of my class for each generic type I insert into the dictionary ?). One alternative I'm attempting is to use Dictionary<string, object> instead: public void Add<T>(string str, T value) { // Assuming key already exists var array = (T[]) dictionary[str]; array[0] = value; } However, when iterating over the dictionary, how do I cast the object value back to an array ? foreach(string strKey in dictionary.Keys) { var array = (T[]) dictionary[strKey]; // How to cast here ? //... array[0] = default(T); } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why calling ISet<dynamic>.Contains() compiles, but throws an exception at runtime?

    - by Andrey Breslav
    Please, help me to explain the following behavior: dynamic d = 1; ISet<dynamic> s = new HashSet<dynamic>(); s.Contains(d); The code compiles with no errors/warnings, but at the last line I get the following exception: Unhandled Exception: Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException: 'System.Collections.Generic.ISet<object>' does not contain a definition for 'Contains' at CallSite.Target(Closure , CallSite , ISet`1 , Object ) at System.Dynamic.UpdateDelegates.UpdateAndExecuteVoid2[T0,T1](CallSite site, T0 arg0, T1 arg1) at FormulaToSimulation.Program.Main(String[] args) in As far as I can tell, this is related to dynamic overload resolution, but the strange things are (1) If the type of s is HashSet<dynamic>, no exception occurs. (2) If I use a non-generic interface with a method accepting a dynamic argument, no exception occurs. Thus, it looks like this problem is related particularly with generic interfaces, but I could not find out what exactly causes the problem. Is it a bug in the compiler/typesystem, or legitimate behavior?

    Read the article

  • I want to get 2 values returned by my query. How to do, using linq-to-entity

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    var dept_list = (from map in DtMapGuestDepartment.AsEnumerable() where map.Field<Nullable<long>>("GUEST_ID") == DRowGuestPI.Field<Nullable<long>>("PK_GUEST_ID") join dept in DtDepartment.AsEnumerable() on map.Field<Nullable<long>>("DEPARTMENT_ID") equals dept.Field<Nullable<long>>("DEPARTMENT_ID") select new { dept_id=dept.Field<long>("DEPARTMENT_ID") ,dept_name=dept.Field<long>("DEPARTMENT_NAME") }).Distinct(); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); dt.Columns.Add("DEPARTMENT_ID"); dt.Columns.Add("DEPARTMENT_NAME"); foreach (long? dept_ in dept_list) { dt.Rows.Add(dept_[0], dept_[1]); } EDIT In the previous question asked by me. I got an answer like this for single value. What is the difference between the two ? foreach (long? dept in dept_list) { dt.Rows.Add(dept); }

    Read the article

  • How to invoke a method with a generic return type using reflection

    - by Andre Luus
    Hi there! I'm trying to invoke a method with reflection that has a generic return type, like this: public class SomeClass<T> { public List<T> GetStuff(); } I get an instance of SomeClass with a call to a Repository's GetClass<T> generic method. MethodInfo lGetSomeClassMethodInfo = typeof(IRepository) .GetMethod("GetClass") .MakeGenericMethod(typeof(SomeClass<>); object lSomeClassInstance = lGetSomeClassMethodInfo.Invoke( lRepositoryInstance, null); After that, I this is where I try to invoke the GetStuff method: typeof(SomeClass<>).GetMethod("GetStuff").Invoke(lSomeClassInstance, null) I get an exception about the fact that the method has generic arguments. However, I can't use MakeGenericMethod to resolve the return type. Also, if instead of typeof(SomeClass<>) I use lSomeClassInstance.GetType() (which should have resolved types) GetMethod("GetStuff") returns null! UPDATE I have found the solution and will post the answer shortly.

    Read the article

  • Converting generic type to it's base and vice-versa

    - by Pajci
    Can someone help me with the conversion I am facing in enclosed code ... I commented the lines of code, where I am having problem. Is this even the right way to achieve this ... what I am trying to do, is forward responses of specified type to provided callback. public class MessageBinder { private class Subscriber<T> : IEquatable<Subscriber<T>> where T : Response { ... } private readonly Dictionary<Type, List<Subscriber<Response>>> bindings; public MessageBinder() { this.bindings = new Dictionary<Type, List<Subscriber<Response>>>(); } public void Bind<TResponse>(short shortAddress, Action<ZigbeeAsyncResponse<TResponse>> callback) where TResponse : Response { List<Subscriber<TResponse>> subscribers = this.GetSubscribers<TResponse>(); if (subscribers != null) { subscribers.Add(new Subscriber<TResponse>(shortAddress, callback)); } else { var subscriber = new Subscriber<TResponse>(shortAddress, callback); // ERROR: cannot convert from 'List<Subscriber<TResponse>>' to 'List<Subscriber<Response>>' ... tried LINQ Cast operator - does not work either this.bindings.Add(typeof(TResponse), new List<Subscriber<TResponse>> { subscriber }); } } public void Forward<TResponse>(TResponse response) where TResponse : Response { var subscribers = this.GetSubscribers<TResponse>(); if (subscribers != null) { Subscriber<TResponse> subscriber; Type responseType = typeof (TResponse); if (responseType.IsSubclassOf(typeof (AFResponse))) { // ERROR: Cannot convert type 'TResponse' to 'AFResponse' ... tried cast to object first, works, but is this the right way? var afResponse = (AFResponse)response; subscriber = subscribers.SingleOrDefault(s => s.ShortAddress == afResponse.ShortAddress); } else { subscriber = subscribers.First(); } if (subscriber != null) { subscriber.Forward(response); } } } private List<Subscriber<TResponse>> GetSubscribers<TResponse>() where TResponse : Response { List<Subscriber<Response>> subscribers; this.bindings.TryGetValue(typeof(TResponse), out subscribers); // ERROR: How can I cast List<Subscriber<Response>> to List<Subscriber<TResponse>>? return subscribers; } } Thank you for any help :)

    Read the article

  • Dynamic casting using a generic interface

    - by Phil Whittaker
    Hi Is there any way to cast to a dynamic generic interface.. Site s = new Site(); IRepository<Site> obj = (IRepository<s.GetType()>)ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance(t) obviously the above won't compile with this cast. Is there anyway to do a dynamic cast of a generic interface. I have tried adding a non generic interface but the system is looses objects in the Loc container. Thanks Phil

    Read the article

  • Java: how do I get a class literal from a generic type?

    - by Tom
    Typically, I've seen people use the class literal like this: Class<Foo> cls = Foo.class; But what if the type is generic, e.g. List? This works fine, but has a warning since List should be parameterized: Class<List> cls = List.class So why not add a <?>? Well, this causes a type mismatch error: Class<List<?>> cls = List.class I figured something like this would work, but this is just a plain ol' a syntax error: Class<List<Foo>> cls = List<Foo>.class How can I get a Class<List<Foo>> statically, e.g. using the class literal? I could use @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") to get rid of the warnings caused by the non-parameterized use of List in the first example, Class<List> cls = List.class, but I'd rather not. Any suggestions? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Insert into a generic dictionary with possibility of duplicate keys?

    - by Chris Clark
    Is there any reason to favor one of these approaches over the other when inserting into a generic dictionary with the possibility of a key conflict? I'm building an in-memory version of a static collection so in the case of a conflict it doesn't matter whether the old or new value is used. If Not mySettings.ContainsKey(key) Then mySettings.Add(key, Value) End If Versus mySettings(key) = Value And then of course there is this, which is obviously not the right approach: Try mySettings.Add(key, Value) Catch End Try Clearly the big difference here is that the first and second approaches actually do different things, but in my case it doesn't matter. It seems that the second approach is cleaner, but I'm curious if any of you .net gurus have any deeper insight. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • [C#] Problems with implementing generic IEnumerator and IComparable

    - by r0h
    Hi all! I'm working on an AVL Tree. The tree itself seems to be working but I need a iterator to walk through the values of the tree. Therefore I tried to implement the IEnumerator interace. Unfortunately I get a compile time error implementing IEnumerator and IComparable. First the code and below that the error. class AvlTreePreOrderEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T> where T :IComparable<T> { private AvlTreeNode<T> current = default(T); private AvlTreeNode<T> tree = null; private Queue<AvlTreeNode<T>> traverseQueue = null; public AvlTreePreOrderEnumerator(AvlTreeNode<T> tree) { this.tree = tree; //Build queue traverseQueue = new Queue<AvlTreeNode<T>>(); visitNode(this.tree.Root); } private void visitNode(AvlTreeNode<T> node) { if (node == null) return; else { traverseQueue.Enqueue(node); visitNode(node.LeftChild); visitNode(node.RightChild); } } public T Current { get { return current.Value; } } object IEnumerator.Current { get { return Current; } } public void Dispose() { current = null; tree = null; } public void Reset() { current = null; } public bool MoveNext() { if (traverseQueue.Count > 0) current = traverseQueue.Dequeue(); else current = null; return (current != null); } } The error given by VS2008: Error 1 The type 'T' cannot be used as type parameter 'T' in the generic type or method 'Opdr2_AvlTreeTest_Final.AvlTreeNode'. There is no boxing conversion or type parameter conversion from 'T' to 'System.IComparable'. For now I've not included the tree and node logic. I anybody thinks is necessary to resolve this probleem, just say so! Thx!

    Read the article

  • Nullable<T> as a parameter

    - by ferch
    I alredy have this: public static object GetDBValue(object ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated == null) return DBNull.Value; else return ObjectEvaluated; } used like: List<SqlParameter> Params = new List<SqlParameter>(); Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityType", GetDBValue(EntityType))); Now i wanted to keep the same interface but extend that to use it with nullable public static object GetDBValue(int? ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } public static object GetDBValue(DateTime? ObjectEvaluated) {...} but i want only 1 function GetDBValue for nullables. How do I do that and keep the call as is is? Is that possible at all? I can make it work like: public static object GetDBValue<T>(Nullable<T> ObjectEvaluated) where T : struct { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } But the call changes to: Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityID ", GetDBValue<int>(EntityID)));

    Read the article

  • Generic cast type to primitive.

    - by Nix
    Is there a way to do the below? Imagine a generic result wrapper class. Where you have a type and an associated error list. When there is no result to return to the user we will use boolean to indicate success failure. I want to create a constructor that takes in an error list, and if the list is null or count 0, AND the type is a bool/Boolean i want to set it to true.... Seemingly simple, but amazingly not possible. public class Result<T>{ private T valueObject { get;set;} private List<Error> errors{ get;set;} public Result(T valueObj, List<Error> errorList){ this.valueObject = valueObj; this.errors = errorList; } public Result(List<Error> errors) { this.valueObject = default(ReturnType); if (valueObject is Boolean) { //Wont work compile //(valueObject as Boolean) = ((errors == null) || errors.Count == 0); //Compiles but detaches reference //bool temp = ((bool)(valueObject as object)) ; //temp = ((errors == null) || errors.Count == 0); } this.errors = errors; } } } Am I missing something simple? And in general I would prefer to do it without reflection.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way of using a pair (triple, etc) of values as one value in C#?

    - by Yacoder
    That is, I'd like to have a tuple of values. The use case on my mind: Dictionary<Pair<string, int>, object> or Dictionary<Triple<string, int, int>, object> Are there built-in types like Pair or Triple? Or what's the best way of implementing it? Update There are some general-purpose tuples implementations described in the answers, but for tuples used as keys in dictionaries you should additionaly verify correct calculation of the hash code. Some more info on that in another question. Update 2 I guess it is also worth reminding, that when you use some value as a key in dictionary, it should be immutable.

    Read the article

  • Generic Type constraint in .net

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Why is TRest in Tuple<T1... TRest> not constrained?

    - by Anthony Pegram
    In a Tuple, if you have more than 7 items, you can provide an 8th item that is another tuple and define up to 7 items, and then another tuple as the 8th and on and on down the line. However, there is no constraint on the 8th item at compile time. For example, this is legal code for the compiler: var tuple = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, double> (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1d); Even though the intellisense documentation says that TRest must be a Tuple. You do not get any error when writing or building the code, it does not manifest until runtime in the form of an ArgumentException. You can roughly implement a Tuple in a few minutes, complete with a Tuple-constrained 8th item. I just wonder why it was left off the current implementation? Is it possibly a forward-compatibility issue where they could add more elements with a hypothetical C# 5? Short version of rough implementation interface IMyTuple { } class MyTuple<T1> : IMyTuple { public T1 Item1 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1) { Item1 = item1; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2> : MyTuple<T1> { public T2 Item2 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2) : base(item1) { Item2 = item2; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2, TRest> : MyTuple<T1, T2> where TRest : IMyTuple { public TRest Rest { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2, TRest rest) : base(item1, item2) { Rest = rest; } } ... var mytuple = new MyTuple<int, int, MyTuple<int>>(1, 1, new MyTuple<int>(1)); // legal var mytuple2 = new MyTuple<int, int, int>(1, 2, 3); // illegal

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >