Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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

  • 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

  • Generic Lists copying references rather than creating a copiedList

    - by Dean
    I was developing a small function when trying to run an enumerator across a list and then carry out some action. (Below is an idea of what I was trying to do. When trying to remove I got a "Collection cannot be modified" which after I had actually woken up I realised that tempList must have just been assigned myLists reference rather than a copy of myLists. After that I tried to find a way to say tempList = myList.copy However nothing seems to exist?? I ended up writing a small for loop that then just added each item from myLsit into tempList but I would have thought there would have been another mechanism (like clone??) So my question(s): is my assumption about tempList receiving a reference to myList correct How should a list be copied to another list? private myList as List (Of something) sub new() myList.add(new Something) end sub sub myCalledFunction() dim tempList as new List (Of Something) tempList = myList Using i as IEnumerator = myList.getEnumarator while i.moveNext 'if some critria is met then tempList.remove(i.current) end end using end sub

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 a .net generic dictionary so big

    - by thefroatgt
    I am serializing a generic dictionary in VB.net and I am very surprised that it is about 1.3kb with a single item. Am I doing something wrong, or is there something else I should be doing? I have a large number of dictionaries and it is killing me to send them all across the wire. The code I use for serialization is Dim dictionary As New Dictionary(Of Integer, Integer) Dim stream As New MemoryStream Dim bformatter As New BinaryFormatter() dictionary.Add(1, 1) bformatter.Serialize(stream, dictionary) Dim len As Long = stream.Length

    Read the article

  • Access to an inner type

    - by sohum
    A colleague of mine posted a question on an internal forum which got me thinking about whether this was possible through C#. Basically, he's got an interface as follows: public interface IProvider<T> { T GetT(); } Is it possible to use something that implements that interface as a type parameter to another generic class and have access to the type T without re-specifying it? For example: public class Foo<P> where P : IProvider<T> { P p; T GetInnerT() { return p.GetT(); } } This does not compile, because the type T is not defined and hence can't be used as a parameter for IProvider. Is something like this even possible? Just curious!

    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

  • Differentiate generic methods by type parameters only using reflection?

    - by Brian Vallelunga
    I'm trying to use reflection to get a specific MethodInfo of a class, but am unsure how to differentiate between the two following methods: public class Test { public IBar<T1> Foo<T1>(); public IBar<T1, T2> Foo<T1, T2>(); } How can I get a reference to the different Foo methods, assuming I know the number of type parameters? Just calling typeof(Test).GetMethod("Foo") will throw an exception that the method name is ambiguous and there aren't a differing number of parameters to check.

    Read the article

  • Multi-tier applications using L2S, WCF and Base Class

    - by Gena Verdel
    Hi all. One day I decided to build this nice multi-tier application using L2S and WCF. The simplified model is : DataBase-L2S-Wrapper(DTO)-Client Application. The communication between Client and Database is achieved by using Data Transfer Objects which contain entity objects as their properties. abstract public class BaseObject { public virtual IccSystem.iccObjectTypes ObjectICC_Type { get { return IccSystem.iccObjectTypes.unknownType; } } [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage = "_ID", AutoSync = AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType = "BigInt NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsPrimaryKey = true, IsDbGenerated = true)] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order = 1)] public virtual long ID { //get; //set; get { return _ID; } set { _ID = value; } } } [DataContract] public class BaseObjectWrapper<T> where T : BaseObject { #region Fields private T _DBObject; #endregion #region Properties [DataMember] public T Entity { get { return _DBObject; } set { _DBObject = value; } } #endregion } Pretty simple, isn't it?. Here's the catch. Each one of the mapped classes contains ID property itself so I decided to override it like this [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.TableAttribute(Name="dbo.Divisions")] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute()] public partial class Division : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged { [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage="_ID", AutoSync=AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType="BigInt NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsPrimaryKey=true, IsDbGenerated=true)] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order=1)] public override long ID { get { return this._ID; } set { if ((this._ID != value)) { this.OnIDChanging(value); this.SendPropertyChanging(); this._ID = value; this.SendPropertyChanged("ID"); this.OnIDChanged(); } } } } Wrapper for division is pretty straightforward as well: public class DivisionWrapper : BaseObjectWrapper<Division> { } It worked pretty well as long as I kept ID values at mapped class and its BaseObject class the same(that's not very good approach, I know, but still) but then this happened: private CentralDC _dc; public bool UpdateDivision(ref DivisionWrapper division) { DivisionWrapper tempWrapper = division; if (division.Entity == null) { return false; } try { Table<Division> table = _dc.Divisions; var q = table.Where(o => o.ID == tempWrapper.Entity.ID); if (q.Count() == 0) { division.Entity._errorMessage = "Unable to locate entity with id " + division.Entity.ID.ToString(); return false; } var realEntity = q.First(); realEntity = division.Entity; _dc.SubmitChanges(); return true; } catch (Exception ex) { division.Entity._errorMessage = ex.Message; return false; } } When trying to enumerate over the in-memory query the following exception occurred: Class member BaseObject.ID is unmapped. Although I'm stating the type and overriding the ID property L2S fails to work. Any suggestions?

    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

  • How to create a generic list in this wierd case in c#

    - by Marc Bettex
    Hello, In my program, I have a class A which is extended by B, C and many more classes. I have a method GetInstance() which returns a instance of B or C (or of one of the other child), but I don't know which one, so the return type of the method is A. In the method CreateGenericList(), I have a variable v of type A, which is in fact either a B, a C or another child type and I want to create a generic list of the proper type, i.e. List<B> if v is a B or List<C> if v is a C, ... Currently I do it by using reflection, which works, but this is extremely slow. I wanted to know if there is another way to to it, which doesn't use reflection. Here is an example of the code of my problem: class A { } class B : A { } class C : A { } // More childs of A. class Program { static A GetInstance() { // returns an instance of B or C } static void CreateGenericList() { A v = Program.GetInstance(); IList genericList = // Here I want an instance of List<B> or List<C> or ... depending of the real type of v, not a List<A>. } } I tried the following hack. I call the following method, hoping the type inferencer will guess the type of model, but it doesn't work and return a List<A>. I believe that because c# is statically typed, T is resolved as A and not as the real type of model at runtime. static List<T> CreateGenericListFromModel<T>(T model) where T : A { return new List<T> (); } Does anybody have a solution to that problem that doesn't use reflection or that it is impossible to solve that problem without reflection? Thank you very much, Marc

    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

  • Dynamically find the parameter to be passed as <T> to a generic method

    - by Codex
    A generic method is defined as follows: private static T GetComparisonObject<T>(ComparisonAttribute attribute, object objectToParse) { // Perform a some action return (T)resultObject; } The method is invoked as follows: var srcObjectToCompare = GetComparisonObject<DynamicType>(attributeToCompare, srcObject); The type for which the method needs to be invoked is configured in the config file as: <add attributename ="Count" attributetype ="MemberInformation" attributeparam ="Count" type="System.Int32" comparertype="ditCreditEMGTestAutomationDifferenceEngine.Comparers.TypeComparer, ditCreditEMGTestAutomationDifferenceEngine.dll" /> The token that is passed in < for the generic methods has to be the type for which the method is being invoked. From the type key configuration in the XML, an instance of Type represnting the type can be created{i.e. Type.GetType("System.Int32")}, but how can the Type Definition be generated which can then be passed to the the Generic method? Hope am not missing something elementary here!! :-O Thanks in advance.

    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

  • 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

  • Dynamically Run IQueryable Method

    - by Micah
    Hi! I'm trying to run the Count() function of a Linq statement in an overriden Gridview function. Basically, I want to be able to assign a linq query to a gridview, and on the OnDataBound(e) event in my new extended gridview have it retrieve the count, using the IQueryable. This is where I'm at so far: protected override void OnDataBound(EventArgs e) { IEnumerable _data = null; if (this.DataSource is IQueryable) { _data = (IQueryable)this.DataSource; } System.Type dataSourceType = _data.GetType(); System.Type dataItemType = typeof(object); if (dataSourceType.HasElementType) { dataItemType = dataSourceType.GetElementType(); } else if (dataSourceType.IsGenericType) { dataItemType = dataSourceType.GetGenericArguments()[0]; } else if (_data is IEnumerable) { IEnumerator dataEnumerator = _data.GetEnumerator(); if (dataEnumerator.MoveNext() && dataEnumerator.Current != null) { dataItemType = dataEnumerator.Current.GetType(); } } Object o = Activator.CreateInstance(dataItemType); object[] objArray = new object[] { o }; RowCount = (int)dataSourceType.GetMethod("Count").Invoke(_data, objArray); Any ideas? I'm really new with working with IQueryables and Linq so I may be way off. How can I get my _data to allow me to run the Count function?

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard .NET exception to throw when a class doesn't implement a required attribute?

    - by a typing monkey
    Suppose I want to throw a new exception when invoking a generic method with a type that doesn't have a required attribute. Is there a .NET exception that's appropriate for this situation, or, more likely, one that would be a suitable ancestor for a custom exception? For example: public static class ClassA { public static T DoSomething<T>(string p) { Type returnType = typeof(T); object[] typeAttributes = returnType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(SerializableAttribute), true); if ((typeAttributes == null) || (typeAttributes.Length == 0)) { // Is there an exception type in the framework that I should use/inherit from here? throw new Exception("This class doesn't support blah blah blah"); // Maybe ArgumentException? That doesn't seem to fit right. } } } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Existentials and Scrap your Boilerplate

    - by finnsson
    I'm writing a XML (de)serializer using Text.XML.Light and Scrap your Boilerplate (at http://github.com/finnsson/Text.XML.Generic) and so far I got working code for "normal" ADTs but I'm stuck at deserializing existentials. I got the existential data type data DataBox where DataBox :: (Show d, Eq d, Data d) => d -> DataBox and I'm trying to get this to compile instance Data DataBox where gfoldl k z (DataBox d) = z DataBox `k` d gunfold k z c = k (z DataBox) -- not OK toConstr (DataBox d) = toConstr d dataTypeOf (DataBox d) = dataTypeOf d but I can't figure out how to implement gunfold for DataBox. The error message is Text/XML/Generic.hs:274:23: Ambiguous type variable `b' in the constraints: `Eq b' arising from a use of `DataBox' at Text/XML/Generic.hs:274:23-29 `Show b' arising from a use of `DataBox' at Text/XML/Generic.hs:274:23-29 `Data b' arising from a use of `k' at Text/XML/Generic.hs:274:18-30 Probable fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s) It's complaining about not being able to figure out the data type of b. I'm also trying to implement dataCast1 and dataCast2 but I think I can live without them (i.e. an incorrect implementation). I guess my questions are: Is it possible to combine existentials with Scrap your Boilerplate? If so: how do you implement gunfold for an existential data type?

    Read the article

  • Why is Func<T> ambiguous with Func<IEnumerable<T>>?

    - by Matt Hamilton
    This one's got me flummoxed, so I thought I'd ask here in the hope that a C# guru can explain it to me. Why does this code generate an error? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Foo(X); // the error is on this line } static String X() { return "Test"; } static void Foo(Func<IEnumerable<String>> x) { } static void Foo(Func<String> x) { } } The error in question: Error 1 The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>>)' and 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<string>)' C:\Users\mabster\AppData\Local\Temporary Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Program.cs 12 13 ConsoleApplication1 It doesn't matter what type I use - if you replace the "String" declarations with "int" in that code you'll get the same sort of error. It's like the compiler can't tell the difference between Func<T> and Func<IEnumerable<T>>. Can someone shed some light on this?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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