Search Results

Search found 115 results on 5 pages for 'variance'.

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 1/5 | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why is there no parameter contra-variance for overriding?

    - by Oak
    C++ and Java support return-type covariance when overriding methods. Neither, however, support contra-variance in parameter types - instead, it translates to overloading (Java) or hiding (C++). Why is that? It seems to me that there is no harm in allowing that. I can find one reason for it in Java - since it has the "choose-the-most-specific-version" mechanism for overloading anyway - but can't think of any reason for C++. Example (Java): class A { public void f(String s) {...} } class B extends A { public void f(Object o) {...} // Why doesn't this override A.f? }

    Read the article

  • mean and variance of image in single pass

    - by ajith
    hi everyone,am trying to calculate mean and variance using 3X3 window over image(hXw) in opencv...here is my code...is there any accuracy issues with this??or is there any other efficient method to do it in one pass.? int pi,a,b; for(i=1;i

    Read the article

  • How to explain to a layperson the variance in programmer rates?

    - by Matt McCormick
    I recently talked to a guy that is looking for developers to build a product idea. He mentioned he has received interest from people but the rates have varied from $20-120/hr. This project he estimates should take 3-6 months and since he is non-technical, he is confused why there can be so much variance. I understand how I would choose someone but I am a developer and can gauge other people's work. How can I explain to him (in a non-biased way, if possible, as I will apply as well) about the variance in rates? Is there any good analogy that would help?

    Read the article

  • C# Delegate under the hood question.

    - by Ted
    Hi Guys I was doing some digging around into delegate variance after reading the following tquestion in SO. "delegate-createdelegate-and-generics-error-binding-to-target-method" (sorry not allowed to post more than one hyperlink as a newbie here!) I found a very nice bit of code from Barry kelly at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8184237816669520763&postID=2109708553230166434 Here it is (in a sugared-up form :-) using System; namespace ConsoleApplication4 { internal class Base { } internal class Derived : Base { } internal delegate void baseClassDelegate(Base b); internal delegate void derivedClassDelegate(Derived d); internal class App { private static void Foo1(Base b) { Console.WriteLine("Foo 1"); } private static void Foo2(Derived b) { Console.WriteLine("Foo 2"); } private static T CastDelegate<T>(Delegate src) where T : class { return (T) (object) Delegate.CreateDelegate( typeof (T), src.Target, src.Method, true); // throw on fail } private static void Main() { baseClassDelegate a = Foo1; // works fine derivedClassDelegate b = Foo2; // works fine b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though b(new Derived()); b = CastDelegate<derivedClassDelegate>(a); // the hard way, avoids indirection b(new Derived()); } } } I understand all of it except this one (what looks very simple) line. b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though Can anyone tell me: how it is possible to call invoke without passing the param required by the static function. When is going on under the hood when you assign the return value from calling invoke What does Barry mean by extra indirection (in his comment)

    Read the article

  • Problem using Lazy<T> from within a generic abstract class

    - by James Black
    I have a generic class that all my DAO classes derive from, which is defined below. I also have a base class for all my entities, but that is not generic. The method GetIdOrSave is going to be a different type than how I defined SabaAbstractDAO, as I am trying to get the primary key to fulfill the foreign key relationships, so this function goes out to either get the primary key or save the entity and then get the primary key. The last code snippet has a solution on how it will work if I get rid of the generic part, so I think this can be solved by using variance, but I can't figure out how to write an interface that will compile. public abstract class SabaAbstractDAO<T> { ... public K GetIdOrSave<K>(K item, Lazy<SabaAbstractDAO<BaseModel>> lazyitemdao) where K : BaseModel { if (item != null && item.Id.IsNull()) { var itemdao = lazyitemdao.Value; item.Id = itemdao.retrieveID(item); if (item.Id.IsNull()) { return itemdao.SaveData(item); } } return item; } } I am getting this error, when I try to compile: Argument 2: cannot convert from 'System.Lazy<ORNL.HRD.LMS.Dao.SabaCourseDAO>' to 'System.Lazy<ORNL.HRD.LMS.Dao.SabaAbstractDAO<ORNL.HRD.LMS.Models.BaseModel>>' I am trying to call it this way: GetIdOrSave(input.OfferingTemplate, new Lazy<SabaCourseDAO>( () => { return new SabaCourseDAO() { Dao = Dao }; }) ); If I change the definition to this, it works. public K GetIdOrSave<K>(K item, Lazy<SabaCourseDAO> lazyitemdao) where K : BaseModel { So, how can I get this to compile using variance (if needed) and generics, so I can have a very general method that will only work with BaseModel and AbstractDAO<BaseModel>? I expect I should only need to make the change in the method and perhaps abstract class definition, the usage should be fine.

    Read the article

  • When is @uncheckedVariance needed in Scala, and why is it used in GenericTraversableTemplate?

    - by retronym
    @uncheckedVariance can be used to bridge the gap between Scala's declaration site variance annotations and Java's invariant generics. scala import java.util.Comparator import java.util.Comparator scala trait Foo[T] extends Comparator[T] defined trait Foo scala trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T] :5: error: contravariant type T occurs in invariant position in type [-T]java.lang.Object with java.util.Comparator[T] of trait Foo trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T] ^ scala import annotation.unchecked._ import annotation.unchecked._ scala trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T @uncheckedVariance] defined trait Foo This says that java.util.Comparator is naturally contra-variant, that is the type parameter T appears in parameters and never in a return type. Which begs the question, why is it also used in the Scala collections library: trait GenericTraversableTemplate[+A, +CC[X] <: Traversable[X]] extends HasNewBuilder[A, CC[A] @uncheckedVariance] What are the valid uses for this annotation?

    Read the article

  • Can I have a type that's both, covariant and contravariant, i.e. fully fungible/changeable with sub

    - by Water Cooler v2
    Just a stupid question. I could try it out in 2 minutes, really. It's just that I have 1 GB RAM and have already got 2 instances of VS 2010 open on my desktop, with an instance of VS 2005, too. Opening another instance of VS 2010 would be an over kill. Can I have a type (for now forgetting its semantics) that can be covariant as well as contravariant? For e.g. public interface Foo<in out T> { void DoFooWith(T arg); } Off to Eric Lippert's blog for the meat and potatoes of variance in C# 4.0 as there's little else anywhere that covers adequate ground on the subject.

    Read the article

  • C# 4.0: Covariance And Contravariance In Generics

    - by Paulo Morgado
    C# 4.0 (and .NET 4.0) introduced covariance and contravariance to generic interfaces and delegates. But what is this variance thing? According to Wikipedia, in multilinear algebra and tensor analysis, covariance and contravariance describe how the quantitative description of certain geometrical or physical entities changes when passing from one coordinate system to another.(*) But what does this have to do with C# or .NET? In type theory, a the type T is greater (>) than type S if S is a subtype (derives from) T, which means that there is a quantitative description for types in a type hierarchy. So, how does covariance and contravariance apply to C# (and .NET) generic types? In C# (and .NET), variance applies to generic type parameters and not to the resulting generic type. A generic type parameter is: covariant if the ordering of the generic types follows the ordering of the generic type parameters: Generic<T> = Generic<S> for T = S. contravariant if the ordering of the generic types is reversed from the ordering of the generic type parameters: Generic<T> = Generic<S> for T = S. invariant if neither of the above apply. If this definition is applied to arrays, we can see that arrays have always been covariant because this is valid code: object[] objectArray = new string[] { "string 1", "string 2" }; objectArray[0] = "string 3"; objectArray[1] = new object(); However, when we try to run this code, the second assignment will throw an ArrayTypeMismatchException. Although the compiler was fooled into thinking this was valid code because an object is being assigned to an element of an array of object, at run time, there is always a type check to guarantee that the runtime type of the definition of the elements of the array is greater or equal to the instance being assigned to the element. In the above example, because the runtime type of the array is array of string, the first assignment of array elements is valid because string = string and the second is invalid because string = object. This leads to the conclusion that, although arrays have always been covariant, they are not safely covariant – code that compiles is not guaranteed to run without errors. In C#, the way to define that a generic type parameter as covariant is using the out generic modifier: public interface IEnumerable<out T> { IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator<out T> { T Current { get; } bool MoveNext(); } Notice the convenient use the pre-existing out keyword. Besides the benefit of not having to remember a new hypothetic covariant keyword, out is easier to remember because it defines that the generic type parameter can only appear in output positions — read-only properties and method return values. In a similar way, the way to define a type parameter as contravariant is using the in generic modifier: public interface IComparer<in T> { int Compare(T x, T y); } Once again, the use of the pre-existing in keyword makes it easier to remember that the generic type parameter can only be used in input positions — write-only properties and method non ref and non out parameters. Because covariance and contravariance apply only to the generic type parameters, a generic type definition can have both covariant and contravariant generic type parameters in its definition: public delegate TResult Func<in T, out TResult>(T arg); A generic type parameter that is not marked covariant (out) or contravariant (in) is invariant. All the types in the .NET Framework where variance could be applied to its generic type parameters have been modified to take advantage of this new feature. In summary, the rules for variance in C# (and .NET) are: Variance in type parameters are restricted to generic interface and generic delegate types. A generic interface or generic delegate type can have both covariant and contravariant type parameters. Variance applies only to reference types; if you specify a value type for a variant type parameter, that type parameter is invariant for the resulting constructed type. Variance does not apply to delegate combination. That is, given two delegates of types Action<Derived> and Action<Base>, you cannot combine the second delegate with the first although the result would be type safe. Variance allows the second delegate to be assigned to a variable of type Action<Derived>, but delegates can combine only if their types match exactly. If you want to learn more about variance in C# (and .NET), you can always read: Covariance and Contravariance in Generics — MSDN Library Exact rules for variance validity — Eric Lippert Events get a little overhaul in C# 4, Afterward: Effective Events — Chris Burrows Note: Because variance is a feature of .NET 4.0 and not only of C# 4.0, all this also applies to Visual Basic 10.

    Read the article

  • Homoscedascity test for Two-Way ANOVA

    - by aL3xa
    I've been using var.test and bartlett.test to check basic ANOVA assumptions, among others, homoscedascity (homogeniety, equality of variances). Procedure is quite simple for One-Way ANOVA: bartlett.test(x ~ g) # where x is numeric, and g is a factor var.test(x ~ g) But, for 2x2 tables, i.e. Two-Way ANOVA's, I want to do something like this: bartlett.test(x ~ c(g1, g2)) # or with list; see latter: var.test(x ~ list(g1, g2)) Of course, ANOVA assumptions can be checked with graphical procedures, but what about "an arithmetic option"? Is that manageable? How do you test homoscedascity in Two-Way ANOVA?

    Read the article

  • Covariance and Contravariance on the same type argument

    - by William Edmondson
    The C# spec states that an argument type cannot be both covariant and contravariant at the same time. This is apparent when creating a covariant or contravariant interface you decorate your type parameters with "out" or "in" respectively. There is not option that allows both at the same time ("outin"). Is this limitation simply a language specific constraint or are there deeper, more fundamental reasons based in category theory that would make you not want your type to be both covariant and contravariant? Edit: My understanding was that arrays were actually both covariant and contravariant. public class Pet{} public class Cat : Pet{} public class Siamese : Cat{} Cat[] cats = new Cat[10]; Pet[] pets = new Pet[10]; Siamese[] siameseCats = new Siamese[10]; //Cat array is covariant pets = cats; //Cat array is also contravariant since it accepts conversions from wider types cats = siameseCats;

    Read the article

  • ref and out parameters in C# and cannot be marked as variant.

    - by Water Cooler v2
    What does the statement mean? From here ref and out parameters in C# and cannot be marked as variant. 1) Does it mean that the following can not be done. public class SomeClass<R, A>: IVariant<R, A> { public virtual R DoSomething( ref A args ) { return null; } } 2) Or does it mean I cannot have the following. public delegate R Reader<out R, in A>(A arg, string s); public static void AssignReadFromPeonMethodToDelegate(ref Reader<object, Peon> pReader) { pReader = ReadFromPeon; } static object ReadFromPeon(Peon p, string propertyName) { return p.GetType().GetField(propertyName).GetValue(p); } static Reader<object, Peon> pReader; static void Main(string[] args) { AssignReadFromPeonMethodToDelegate(ref pReader); bCanReadWrite = (bool)pReader(peon, "CanReadWrite"); Console.WriteLine("Press any key to quit..."); Console.ReadKey(); } I tried (2) and it worked.

    Read the article

  • why is there so much variance in prices for a 2-bay NAS?

    - by jcollum
    I'm considering buying a 2bay NAS for media storage. I'm perplexed by the variety of prices. They go from about $115 to $1200. The only thing I could see that differentiated the high end drive was encryption and a dual gigabit ethernet port. I don't understand how that can add up to $800+ dollars. Clearly I should know why there's this price variance before considering buying a 2 Bay NAS. Newegg link to 2 Bay NAS Should I move this question to serverfault?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to determine the Variance of an Interface / Delegate in C# 4.0?

    - by BFree
    So now that we have generic Covariance and Contravariance on interfaces and delegates in C#, I was just curious if given a Type, you can figure out the covariance/contravariance of its generic arguments. I started trying to write my own implementation, which would look through all of the methods on a given type and see if the return types and or arguments match the types in the generic arguments. The problem is that even if I have this: public interface IFoo<T> { void DoSomething(T item); } using my logic, it LOOKS like it should be contravariant, but since we didn't actually specify: public interface IFoo<in T> { void DoSomething(T item); } (the in parameter) it isn't actually contravariant. Which leads to my question: Is there a way to determine the variance of generic parameters?

    Read the article

  • Noise Estimation / Noise Measurement in Image

    - by Drazick
    Hello. I want to estimate the noise in an image. Let's assume the model of an Image + White Noise. Now I want to estimate the Noise Variance. My method is to calculate the Local Variance (3*3 up to 21*21 Blocks) of the image and then find areas where the Local Variance is fairly constant (By calculating the Local Variance of the Local Variance Matrix). I assume those areas are "Flat" hence the Variance is almost "Pure" noise. Yet I don't get constant results. Is there a better way? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Deferred rendering with VSM - Scaling light depth loses moments

    - by user1423893
    I'm calculating my shadow term using a VSM method. This works correctly when using forward rendered lights but fails with deferred lights. // Shadow term (1 = no shadow) float shadow = 1; // [Light Space -> Shadow Map Space] // Transform the surface into light space and project // NB: Could be done in the vertex shader, but doing it here keeps the // "light shader" abstraction and doesn't limit the number of shadowed lights float4x4 LightViewProjection = mul(LightView, LightProjection); float4 surf_tex = mul(position, LightViewProjection); // Re-homogenize // 'w' component is not used in later calculations so no need to homogenize (it will equal '1' if homogenized) surf_tex.xyz /= surf_tex.w; // Rescale viewport to be [0,1] (texture coordinate system) float2 shadow_tex; shadow_tex.x = surf_tex.x * 0.5f + 0.5f; shadow_tex.y = -surf_tex.y * 0.5f + 0.5f; // Half texel offset //shadow_tex += (0.5 / 512); // Scaled distance to light (instead of 'surf_tex.z') float rescaled_dist_to_light = dist_to_light / LightAttenuation.y; //float rescaled_dist_to_light = surf_tex.z; // [Variance Shadow Map Depth Calculation] // No filtering float2 moments = tex2D(ShadowSampler, shadow_tex).xy; // Flip the moments values to bring them back to their original values moments.x = 1.0 - moments.x; moments.y = 1.0 - moments.y; // Compute variance float E_x2 = moments.y; float Ex_2 = moments.x * moments.x; float variance = E_x2 - Ex_2; variance = max(variance, Bias.y); // Surface is fully lit if the current pixel is before the light occluder (lit_factor == 1) // One-tailed inequality valid if float lit_factor = (rescaled_dist_to_light <= moments.x - Bias.x); // Compute probabilistic upper bound (mean distance) float m_d = moments.x - rescaled_dist_to_light; // Chebychev's inequality float p = variance / (variance + m_d * m_d); p = ReduceLightBleeding(p, Bias.z); // Adjust the light color based on the shadow attenuation shadow *= max(lit_factor, p); This is what I know for certain so far: The lighting is correct if I do not try and calculate the shadow term. (No shadows) The shadow term is correct when calculated using forward rendered lighting. (VSM works with forward rendered lights) With the current rescaled light distance (lightAttenuation.y is the far plane value): float rescaled_dist_to_light = dist_to_light / LightAttenuation.y; The light is correct and the shadow appears to be zoomed in and misses the blurring: When I do not rescale the light and use the homogenized 'surf_tex': float rescaled_dist_to_light = surf_tex.z; the shadows are blurred correctly but the lighting is incorrect and the cube model is no longer lit Why is scaling by the far plane value (LightAttenuation.y) zooming in too far? The only other factor involved is my world pixel position, which is calculated as follows: // [Position] float4 position; // [Screen Position] position.xy = input.PositionClone.xy; // Use 'x' and 'y' components already homogenized for uv coordinates above position.z = tex2D(DepthSampler, texCoord).r; // No need to homogenize 'z' component position.z = 1.0 - position.z; position.w = 1.0; // 1.0 = position.w / position.w // [World Position] position = mul(position, CameraViewProjectionInverse); // Re-homogenize position (xyz AND w, otherwise shadows will bend when camera is close) position.xyz /= position.w; position.w = 1.0; Using the inverse matrix of the camera's view x projection matrix does work for lighting but maybe it is incorrect for shadow calculation? EDIT: Light calculations for shadow including 'dist_to_light' // Work out the light position and direction in world space float3 light_position = float3(LightViewInverse._41, LightViewInverse._42, LightViewInverse._43); // Direction might need to be negated float3 light_direction = float3(-LightViewInverse._31, -LightViewInverse._32, -LightViewInverse._33); // Unnormalized light vector float3 dir_to_light = light_position - position; // Direction from vertex float dist_to_light = length(dir_to_light); // Normalise 'toLight' vector for lighting calculations dir_to_light = normalize(dir_to_light); EDIT2: These are the calculations for the moments (depth) //============================================= //---[Vertex Shaders]-------------------------- //============================================= DepthVSOutput depth_VS( float4 Position : POSITION, uniform float4x4 shadow_view, uniform float4x4 shadow_view_projection) { DepthVSOutput output = (DepthVSOutput)0; // First transform position into world space float4 position_world = mul(Position, World); output.position_screen = mul(position_world, shadow_view_projection); output.light_vec = mul(position_world, shadow_view).xyz; return output; } //============================================= //---[Pixel Shaders]--------------------------- //============================================= DepthPSOutput depth_PS(DepthVSOutput input) { DepthPSOutput output = (DepthPSOutput)0; // Work out the depth of this fragment from the light, normalized to [0, 1] float2 depth; depth.x = length(input.light_vec) / FarPlane; depth.y = depth.x * depth.x; // Flip depth values to avoid floating point inaccuracies depth.x = 1.0f - depth.x; depth.y = 1.0f - depth.y; output.depth = depth.xyxy; return output; } EDIT 3: I have tried the folloiwng: float4 pp; pp.xy = input.PositionClone.xy; // Use 'x' and 'y' components already homogenized for uv coordinates above pp.z = tex2D(DepthSampler, texCoord).r; // No need to homogenize 'z' component pp.z = 1.0 - pp.z; pp.w = 1.0; // 1.0 = position.w / position.w // Determine the depth of the pixel with respect to the light float4x4 LightViewProjection = mul(LightView, LightProjection); float4x4 matViewToLightViewProj = mul(CameraViewProjectionInverse, LightViewProjection); float4 vPositionLightCS = mul(pp, matViewToLightViewProj); float fLightDepth = vPositionLightCS.z / vPositionLightCS.w; // Transform from light space to shadow map texture space. float2 vShadowTexCoord = 0.5 * vPositionLightCS.xy / vPositionLightCS.w + float2(0.5f, 0.5f); vShadowTexCoord.y = 1.0f - vShadowTexCoord.y; // Offset the coordinate by half a texel so we sample it correctly vShadowTexCoord += (0.5f / 512); //g_vShadowMapSize This suffers the same problem as the second picture. I have tried storing the depth based on the view x projection matrix: output.position_screen = mul(position_world, shadow_view_projection); //output.light_vec = mul(position_world, shadow_view); output.light_vec = output.position_screen; depth.x = input.light_vec.z / input.light_vec.w; This gives a shadow that has lots surface acne due to horrible floating point precision errors. Everything is lit correctly though. EDIT 4: Found an OpenGL based tutorial here I have followed it to the letter and it would seem that the uv coordinates for looking up the shadow map are incorrect. The source uses a scaled matrix to get the uv coordinates for the shadow map sampler /// <summary> /// The scale matrix is used to push the projected vertex into the 0.0 - 1.0 region. /// Similar in role to a * 0.5 + 0.5, where -1.0 < a < 1.0. /// <summary> const float4x4 ScaleMatrix = float4x4 ( 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0 ); I had to negate the 0.5 for the y scaling (M22) in order for it to work but the shadowing is still not correct. Is this really the correct way to scale? float2 shadow_tex; shadow_tex.x = surf_tex.x * 0.5f + 0.5f; shadow_tex.y = surf_tex.y * -0.5f + 0.5f; The depth calculations are exactly the same as the source code yet they still do not work, which makes me believe something about the uv calculation above is incorrect.

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: The Predicate, Comparison, and Converter Generic Delegates

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. In the last three weeks, we examined the Action family of delegates (and delegates in general), the Func family of delegates, and the EventHandler family of delegates and how they can be used to support generic, reusable algorithms and classes. This week I will be completing my series on the generic delegates in the .NET Framework with a discussion of three more, somewhat less used, generic delegates: Predicate<T>, Comparison<T>, and Converter<TInput, TOutput>. These are older generic delegates that were introduced in .NET 2.0, mostly for use in the Array and List<T> classes.  Though older, it’s good to have an understanding of them and their intended purpose.  In addition, you can feel free to use them yourself, though obviously you can also use the equivalents from the Func family of delegates instead. Predicate<T> – delegate for determining matches The Predicate<T> delegate was a very early delegate developed in the .NET 2.0 Framework to determine if an item was a match for some condition in a List<T> or T[].  The methods that tend to use the Predicate<T> include: Find(), FindAll(), FindLast() Uses the Predicate<T> delegate to finds items, in a list/array of type T, that matches the given predicate. FindIndex(), FindLastIndex() Uses the Predicate<T> delegate to find the index of an item, of in a list/array of type T, that matches the given predicate. The signature of the Predicate<T> delegate (ignoring variance for the moment) is: 1: public delegate bool Predicate<T>(T obj); So, this is a delegate type that supports any method taking an item of type T and returning bool.  In addition, there is a semantic understanding that this predicate is supposed to be examining the item supplied to see if it matches a given criteria. 1: // finds first even number (2) 2: var firstEven = Array.Find(numbers, n => (n % 2) == 0); 3:  4: // finds all odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) 5: var allEvens = Array.FindAll(numbers, n => (n % 2) == 1); 6:  7: // find index of first multiple of 5 (4) 8: var firstFiveMultiplePos = Array.FindIndex(numbers, n => (n % 5) == 0); This delegate has typically been succeeded in LINQ by the more general Func family, so that Predicate<T> and Func<T, bool> are logically identical.  Strictly speaking, though, they are different types, so a delegate reference of type Predicate<T> cannot be directly assigned to a delegate reference of type Func<T, bool>, though the same method can be assigned to both. 1: // SUCCESS: the same lambda can be assigned to either 2: Predicate<DateTime> isSameDayPred = dt => dt.Date == DateTime.Today; 3: Func<DateTime, bool> isSameDayFunc = dt => dt.Date == DateTime.Today; 4:  5: // ERROR: once they are assigned to a delegate type, they are strongly 6: // typed and cannot be directly assigned to other delegate types. 7: isSameDayPred = isSameDayFunc; When you assign a method to a delegate, all that is required is that the signature matches.  This is why the same method can be assigned to either delegate type since their signatures are the same.  However, once the method has been assigned to a delegate type, it is now a strongly-typed reference to that delegate type, and it cannot be assigned to a different delegate type (beyond the bounds of variance depending on Framework version, of course). Comparison<T> – delegate for determining order Just as the Predicate<T> generic delegate was birthed to give Array and List<T> the ability to perform type-safe matching, the Comparison<T> was birthed to give them the ability to perform type-safe ordering. The Comparison<T> is used in Array and List<T> for: Sort() A form of the Sort() method that takes a comparison delegate; this is an alternate way to custom sort a list/array from having to define custom IComparer<T> classes. The signature for the Comparison<T> delegate looks like (without variance): 1: public delegate int Comparison<T>(T lhs, T rhs); The goal of this delegate is to compare the left-hand-side to the right-hand-side and return a negative number if the lhs < rhs, zero if they are equal, and a positive number if the lhs > rhs.  Generally speaking, null is considered to be the smallest value of any reference type, so null should always be less than non-null, and two null values should be considered equal. In most sort/ordering methods, you must specify an IComparer<T> if you want to do custom sorting/ordering.  The Array and List<T> types, however, also allow for an alternative Comparison<T> delegate to be used instead, essentially, this lets you perform the custom sort without having to have the custom IComparer<T> class defined. It should be noted, however, that the LINQ OrderBy(), and ThenBy() family of methods do not support the Comparison<T> delegate (though one could easily add their own extension methods to create one, or create an IComparer() factory class that generates one from a Comparison<T>). So, given this delegate, we could use it to perform easy sorts on an Array or List<T> based on custom fields.  Say for example we have a data class called Employee with some basic employee information: 1: public sealed class Employee 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: public int Id { get; set; } 5: public double Salary { get; set; } 6: } And say we had a List<Employee> that contained data, such as: 1: var employees = new List<Employee> 2: { 3: new Employee { Name = "John Smith", Id = 2, Salary = 37000.0 }, 4: new Employee { Name = "Jane Doe", Id = 1, Salary = 57000.0 }, 5: new Employee { Name = "John Doe", Id = 5, Salary = 60000.0 }, 6: new Employee { Name = "Jane Smith", Id = 3, Salary = 59000.0 } 7: }; Now, using the Comparison<T> delegate form of Sort() on the List<Employee>, we can sort our list many ways: 1: // sort based on employee ID 2: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => Comparer<int>.Default.Compare(lhs.Id, rhs.Id)); 3:  4: // sort based on employee name 5: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => string.Compare(lhs.Name, rhs.Name)); 6:  7: // sort based on salary, descending (note switched lhs/rhs order for descending) 8: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => Comparer<double>.Default.Compare(rhs.Salary, lhs.Salary)); So again, you could use this older delegate, which has a lot of logical meaning to it’s name, or use a generic delegate such as Func<T, T, int> to implement the same sort of behavior.  All this said, one of the reasons, in my opinion, that Comparison<T> isn’t used too often is that it tends to need complex lambdas, and the LINQ ability to order based on projections is much easier to use, though the Array and List<T> sorts tend to be more efficient if you want to perform in-place ordering. Converter<TInput, TOutput> – delegate to convert elements The Converter<TInput, TOutput> delegate is used by the Array and List<T> delegate to specify how to convert elements from an array/list of one type (TInput) to another type (TOutput).  It is used in an array/list for: ConvertAll() Converts all elements from a List<TInput> / TInput[] to a new List<TOutput> / TOutput[]. The delegate signature for Converter<TInput, TOutput> is very straightforward (ignoring variance): 1: public delegate TOutput Converter<TInput, TOutput>(TInput input); So, this delegate’s job is to taken an input item (of type TInput) and convert it to a return result (of type TOutput).  Again, this is logically equivalent to a newer Func delegate with a signature of Func<TInput, TOutput>.  In fact, the latter is how the LINQ conversion methods are defined. So, we could use the ConvertAll() syntax to convert a List<T> or T[] to different types, such as: 1: // get a list of just employee IDs 2: var empIds = employees.ConvertAll(emp => emp.Id); 3:  4: // get a list of all emp salaries, as int instead of double: 5: var empSalaries = employees.ConvertAll(emp => (int)emp.Salary); Note that the expressions above are logically equivalent to using LINQ’s Select() method, which gives you a lot more power: 1: // get a list of just employee IDs 2: var empIds = employees.Select(emp => emp.Id).ToList(); 3:  4: // get a list of all emp salaries, as int instead of double: 5: var empSalaries = employees.Select(emp => (int)emp.Salary).ToList(); The only difference with using LINQ is that many of the methods (including Select()) are deferred execution, which means that often times they will not perform the conversion for an item until it is requested.  This has both pros and cons in that you gain the benefit of not performing work until it is actually needed, but on the flip side if you want the results now, there is overhead in the behind-the-scenes work that support deferred execution (it’s supported by the yield return / yield break keywords in C# which define iterators that maintain current state information). In general, the new LINQ syntax is preferred, but the older Array and List<T> ConvertAll() methods are still around, as is the Converter<TInput, TOutput> delegate. Sidebar: Variance support update in .NET 4.0 Just like our descriptions of Func and Action, these three early generic delegates also support more variance in assignment as of .NET 4.0.  Their new signatures are: 1: // comparison is contravariant on type being compared 2: public delegate int Comparison<in T>(T lhs, T rhs); 3:  4: // converter is contravariant on input and covariant on output 5: public delegate TOutput Contravariant<in TInput, out TOutput>(TInput input); 6:  7: // predicate is contravariant on input 8: public delegate bool Predicate<in T>(T obj); Thus these delegates can now be assigned to delegates allowing for contravariance (going to a more derived type) or covariance (going to a less derived type) based on whether the parameters are input or output, respectively. Summary Today, we wrapped up our generic delegates discussion by looking at three lesser-used delegates: Predicate<T>, Comparison<T>, and Converter<TInput, TOutput>.  All three of these tend to be replaced by their more generic Func equivalents in LINQ, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t understand what they do or can’t use them for your own code, as they do contain semantic meanings in their names that sometimes get lost in the more generic Func name.   Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,delegates,generics,Predicate,Converter,Comparison

    Read the article

  • Essbase - FormatString

    - by THE
    A look at the documentation for "Typed Measures" shows:"Using format strings, you can format the values (cell contents) of Essbase database members in numeric type measures so that they appear, for query purposes, as text, dates, or other types of predefined values. The resultant display value is the cell’s formatted value (FORMATTED_VALUE property in MDX). The underlying real value is numeric, and this value is unaffected by the associated formatted value."To actually switch ON the use of typed measures in general, you need to navigate to the outline properties: open outline select properties change "Typed Measures enable" to TRUE (click to enlarge) As an example, I created two additional members in the ASOSamp outline. - A member "delta Price" in the Measures (Accounts) Dimension with the Formula: ([Original Price],[Curr_year])-([Original Price],[Prev_year])This is equivalent to the Variance Formula used in the "Years" Dimension. - A member "Var_Quickview" in the "Years" Dimension with the same formula as the "Variance" Member.This will be used to simply display a second cell with the same underlying value as Variance - but formatted using Format String hence enabling BOTH in the same report. (click to enlarge) In the outline you now select the member you want the Format String associated with and change the "associated Format String" in the Member Properties.As you can see in this example an IIF statement reading:MdxFormat(IIF(CellValue()< 0,"Negative","Positive" ) ) has been chosen for both new members.After applying the Format String changes and running a report via SmartView, the result is: (click to enlarge) reference: Essbase Database Admin Guide ,Chapter 12 "Working with Typed Measures "

    Read the article

  • New features of C# 4.0

    This article covers New features of C# 4.0. Article has been divided into below sections. Introduction. Dynamic Lookup. Named and Optional Arguments. Features for COM interop. Variance. Relationship with Visual Basic. Resources. Other interested readings… 22 New Features of Visual Studio 2008 for .NET Professionals 50 New Features of SQL Server 2008 IIS 7.0 New features Introduction It is now close to a year since Microsoft Visual C# 3.0 shipped as part of Visual Studio 2008. In the VS Managed Languages team we are hard at work on creating the next version of the language (with the unsurprising working title of C# 4.0), and this document is a first public description of the planned language features as we currently see them. Please be advised that all this is in early stages of production and is subject to change. Part of the reason for sharing our plans in public so early is precisely to get the kind of feedback that will cause us to improve the final product before it rolls out. Simultaneously with the publication of this whitepaper, a first public CTP (community technology preview) of Visual Studio 2010 is going out as a Virtual PC image for everyone to try. Please use it to play and experiment with the features, and let us know of any thoughts you have. We ask for your understanding and patience working with very early bits, where especially new or newly implemented features do not have the quality or stability of a final product. The aim of the CTP is not to give you a productive work environment but to give you the best possible impression of what we are working on for the next release. The CTP contains a number of walkthroughs, some of which highlight the new language features of C# 4.0. Those are excellent for getting a hands-on guided tour through the details of some common scenarios for the features. You may consider this whitepaper a companion document to these walkthroughs, complementing them with a focus on the overall language features and how they work, as opposed to the specifics of the concrete scenarios. C# 4.0 The major theme for C# 4.0 is dynamic programming. Increasingly, objects are “dynamic” in the sense that their structure and behavior is not captured by a static type, or at least not one that the compiler knows about when compiling your program. Some examples include a. objects from dynamic programming languages, such as Python or Ruby b. COM objects accessed through IDispatch c. ordinary .NET types accessed through reflection d. objects with changing structure, such as HTML DOM objects While C# remains a statically typed language, we aim to vastly improve the interaction with such objects. A secondary theme is co-evolution with Visual Basic. Going forward we will aim to maintain the individual character of each language, but at the same time important new features should be introduced in both languages at the same time. They should be differentiated more by style and feel than by feature set. The new features in C# 4.0 fall into four groups: Dynamic lookup Dynamic lookup allows you to write method, operator and indexer calls, property and field accesses, and even object invocations which bypass the C# static type checking and instead gets resolved at runtime. Named and optional parameters Parameters in C# can now be specified as optional by providing a default value for them in a member declaration. When the member is invoked, optional arguments can be omitted. Furthermore, any argument can be passed by parameter name instead of position. COM specific interop features Dynamic lookup as well as named and optional parameters both help making programming against COM less painful than today. On top of that, however, we are adding a number of other small features that further improve the interop experience. Variance It used to be that an IEnumerable<string> wasn’t an IEnumerable<object>. Now it is – C# embraces type safe “co-and contravariance” and common BCL types are updated to take advantage of that. Dynamic Lookup Dynamic lookup allows you a unified approach to invoking things dynamically. With dynamic lookup, when you have an object in your hand you do not need to worry about whether it comes from COM, IronPython, the HTML DOM or reflection; you just apply operations to it and leave it to the runtime to figure out what exactly those operations mean for that particular object. This affords you enormous flexibility, and can greatly simplify your code, but it does come with a significant drawback: Static typing is not maintained for these operations. A dynamic object is assumed at compile time to support any operation, and only at runtime will you get an error if it wasn’t so. Oftentimes this will be no loss, because the object wouldn’t have a static type anyway, in other cases it is a tradeoff between brevity and safety. In order to facilitate this tradeoff, it is a design goal of C# to allow you to opt in or opt out of dynamic behavior on every single call. The dynamic type C# 4.0 introduces a new static type called dynamic. When you have an object of type dynamic you can “do things to it” that are resolved only at runtime: dynamic d = GetDynamicObject(…); d.M(7); The C# compiler allows you to call a method with any name and any arguments on d because it is of type dynamic. At runtime the actual object that d refers to will be examined to determine what it means to “call M with an int” on it. The type dynamic can be thought of as a special version of the type object, which signals that the object can be used dynamically. It is easy to opt in or out of dynamic behavior: any object can be implicitly converted to dynamic, “suspending belief” until runtime. Conversely, there is an “assignment conversion” from dynamic to any other type, which allows implicit conversion in assignment-like constructs: dynamic d = 7; // implicit conversion int i = d; // assignment conversion Dynamic operations Not only method calls, but also field and property accesses, indexer and operator calls and even delegate invocations can be dispatched dynamically: dynamic d = GetDynamicObject(…); d.M(7); // calling methods d.f = d.P; // getting and settings fields and properties d[“one”] = d[“two”]; // getting and setting thorugh indexers int i = d + 3; // calling operators string s = d(5,7); // invoking as a delegate The role of the C# compiler here is simply to package up the necessary information about “what is being done to d”, so that the runtime can pick it up and determine what the exact meaning of it is given an actual object d. Think of it as deferring part of the compiler’s job to runtime. The result of any dynamic operation is itself of type dynamic. Runtime lookup At runtime a dynamic operation is dispatched according to the nature of its target object d: COM objects If d is a COM object, the operation is dispatched dynamically through COM IDispatch. This allows calling to COM types that don’t have a Primary Interop Assembly (PIA), and relying on COM features that don’t have a counterpart in C#, such as indexed properties and default properties. Dynamic objects If d implements the interface IDynamicObject d itself is asked to perform the operation. Thus by implementing IDynamicObject a type can completely redefine the meaning of dynamic operations. This is used intensively by dynamic languages such as IronPython and IronRuby to implement their own dynamic object models. It will also be used by APIs, e.g. by the HTML DOM to allow direct access to the object’s properties using property syntax. Plain objects Otherwise d is a standard .NET object, and the operation will be dispatched using reflection on its type and a C# “runtime binder” which implements C#’s lookup and overload resolution semantics at runtime. This is essentially a part of the C# compiler running as a runtime component to “finish the work” on dynamic operations that was deferred by the static compiler. Example Assume the following code: dynamic d1 = new Foo(); dynamic d2 = new Bar(); string s; d1.M(s, d2, 3, null); Because the receiver of the call to M is dynamic, the C# compiler does not try to resolve the meaning of the call. Instead it stashes away information for the runtime about the call. This information (often referred to as the “payload”) is essentially equivalent to: “Perform an instance method call of M with the following arguments: 1. a string 2. a dynamic 3. a literal int 3 4. a literal object null” At runtime, assume that the actual type Foo of d1 is not a COM type and does not implement IDynamicObject. In this case the C# runtime binder picks up to finish the overload resolution job based on runtime type information, proceeding as follows: 1. Reflection is used to obtain the actual runtime types of the two objects, d1 and d2, that did not have a static type (or rather had the static type dynamic). The result is Foo for d1 and Bar for d2. 2. Method lookup and overload resolution is performed on the type Foo with the call M(string,Bar,3,null) using ordinary C# semantics. 3. If the method is found it is invoked; otherwise a runtime exception is thrown. Overload resolution with dynamic arguments Even if the receiver of a method call is of a static type, overload resolution can still happen at runtime. This can happen if one or more of the arguments have the type dynamic: Foo foo = new Foo(); dynamic d = new Bar(); var result = foo.M(d); The C# runtime binder will choose between the statically known overloads of M on Foo, based on the runtime type of d, namely Bar. The result is again of type dynamic. The Dynamic Language Runtime An important component in the underlying implementation of dynamic lookup is the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), which is a new API in .NET 4.0. The DLR provides most of the infrastructure behind not only C# dynamic lookup but also the implementation of several dynamic programming languages on .NET, such as IronPython and IronRuby. Through this common infrastructure a high degree of interoperability is ensured, but just as importantly the DLR provides excellent caching mechanisms which serve to greatly enhance the efficiency of runtime dispatch. To the user of dynamic lookup in C#, the DLR is invisible except for the improved efficiency. However, if you want to implement your own dynamically dispatched objects, the IDynamicObject interface allows you to interoperate with the DLR and plug in your own behavior. This is a rather advanced task, which requires you to understand a good deal more about the inner workings of the DLR. For API writers, however, it can definitely be worth the trouble in order to vastly improve the usability of e.g. a library representing an inherently dynamic domain. Open issues There are a few limitations and things that might work differently than you would expect. · The DLR allows objects to be created from objects that represent classes. However, the current implementation of C# doesn’t have syntax to support this. · Dynamic lookup will not be able to find extension methods. Whether extension methods apply or not depends on the static context of the call (i.e. which using clauses occur), and this context information is not currently kept as part of the payload. · Anonymous functions (i.e. lambda expressions) cannot appear as arguments to a dynamic method call. The compiler cannot bind (i.e. “understand”) an anonymous function without knowing what type it is converted to. One consequence of these limitations is that you cannot easily use LINQ queries over dynamic objects: dynamic collection = …; var result = collection.Select(e => e + 5); If the Select method is an extension method, dynamic lookup will not find it. Even if it is an instance method, the above does not compile, because a lambda expression cannot be passed as an argument to a dynamic operation. There are no plans to address these limitations in C# 4.0. Named and Optional Arguments Named and optional parameters are really two distinct features, but are often useful together. Optional parameters allow you to omit arguments to member invocations, whereas named arguments is a way to provide an argument using the name of the corresponding parameter instead of relying on its position in the parameter list. Some APIs, most notably COM interfaces such as the Office automation APIs, are written specifically with named and optional parameters in mind. Up until now it has been very painful to call into these APIs from C#, with sometimes as many as thirty arguments having to be explicitly passed, most of which have reasonable default values and could be omitted. Even in APIs for .NET however you sometimes find yourself compelled to write many overloads of a method with different combinations of parameters, in order to provide maximum usability to the callers. Optional parameters are a useful alternative for these situations. Optional parameters A parameter is declared optional simply by providing a default value for it: public void M(int x, int y = 5, int z = 7); Here y and z are optional parameters and can be omitted in calls: M(1, 2, 3); // ordinary call of M M(1, 2); // omitting z – equivalent to M(1, 2, 7) M(1); // omitting both y and z – equivalent to M(1, 5, 7) Named and optional arguments C# 4.0 does not permit you to omit arguments between commas as in M(1,,3). This could lead to highly unreadable comma-counting code. Instead any argument can be passed by name. Thus if you want to omit only y from a call of M you can write: M(1, z: 3); // passing z by name or M(x: 1, z: 3); // passing both x and z by name or even M(z: 3, x: 1); // reversing the order of arguments All forms are equivalent, except that arguments are always evaluated in the order they appear, so in the last example the 3 is evaluated before the 1. Optional and named arguments can be used not only with methods but also with indexers and constructors. Overload resolution Named and optional arguments affect overload resolution, but the changes are relatively simple: A signature is applicable if all its parameters are either optional or have exactly one corresponding argument (by name or position) in the call which is convertible to the parameter type. Betterness rules on conversions are only applied for arguments that are explicitly given – omitted optional arguments are ignored for betterness purposes. If two signatures are equally good, one that does not omit optional parameters is preferred. M(string s, int i = 1); M(object o); M(int i, string s = “Hello”); M(int i); M(5); Given these overloads, we can see the working of the rules above. M(string,int) is not applicable because 5 doesn’t convert to string. M(int,string) is applicable because its second parameter is optional, and so, obviously are M(object) and M(int). M(int,string) and M(int) are both better than M(object) because the conversion from 5 to int is better than the conversion from 5 to object. Finally M(int) is better than M(int,string) because no optional arguments are omitted. Thus the method that gets called is M(int). Features for COM interop Dynamic lookup as well as named and optional parameters greatly improve the experience of interoperating with COM APIs such as the Office Automation APIs. In order to remove even more of the speed bumps, a couple of small COM-specific features are also added to C# 4.0. Dynamic import Many COM methods accept and return variant types, which are represented in the PIAs as object. In the vast majority of cases, a programmer calling these methods already knows the static type of a returned object from context, but explicitly has to perform a cast on the returned value to make use of that knowledge. These casts are so common that they constitute a major nuisance. In order to facilitate a smoother experience, you can now choose to import these COM APIs in such a way that variants are instead represented using the type dynamic. In other words, from your point of view, COM signatures now have occurrences of dynamic instead of object in them. This means that you can easily access members directly off a returned object, or you can assign it to a strongly typed local variable without having to cast. To illustrate, you can now say excel.Cells[1, 1].Value = "Hello"; instead of ((Excel.Range)excel.Cells[1, 1]).Value2 = "Hello"; and Excel.Range range = excel.Cells[1, 1]; instead of Excel.Range range = (Excel.Range)excel.Cells[1, 1]; Compiling without PIAs Primary Interop Assemblies are large .NET assemblies generated from COM interfaces to facilitate strongly typed interoperability. They provide great support at design time, where your experience of the interop is as good as if the types where really defined in .NET. However, at runtime these large assemblies can easily bloat your program, and also cause versioning issues because they are distributed independently of your application. The no-PIA feature allows you to continue to use PIAs at design time without having them around at runtime. Instead, the C# compiler will bake the small part of the PIA that a program actually uses directly into its assembly. At runtime the PIA does not have to be loaded. Omitting ref Because of a different programming model, many COM APIs contain a lot of reference parameters. Contrary to refs in C#, these are typically not meant to mutate a passed-in argument for the subsequent benefit of the caller, but are simply another way of passing value parameters. It therefore seems unreasonable that a C# programmer should have to create temporary variables for all such ref parameters and pass these by reference. Instead, specifically for COM methods, the C# compiler will allow you to pass arguments by value to such a method, and will automatically generate temporary variables to hold the passed-in values, subsequently discarding these when the call returns. In this way the caller sees value semantics, and will not experience any side effects, but the called method still gets a reference. Open issues A few COM interface features still are not surfaced in C#. Most notably these include indexed properties and default properties. As mentioned above these will be respected if you access COM dynamically, but statically typed C# code will still not recognize them. There are currently no plans to address these remaining speed bumps in C# 4.0. Variance An aspect of generics that often comes across as surprising is that the following is illegal: IList<string> strings = new List<string>(); IList<object> objects = strings; The second assignment is disallowed because strings does not have the same element type as objects. There is a perfectly good reason for this. If it were allowed you could write: objects[0] = 5; string s = strings[0]; Allowing an int to be inserted into a list of strings and subsequently extracted as a string. This would be a breach of type safety. However, there are certain interfaces where the above cannot occur, notably where there is no way to insert an object into the collection. Such an interface is IEnumerable<T>. If instead you say: IEnumerable<object> objects = strings; There is no way we can put the wrong kind of thing into strings through objects, because objects doesn’t have a method that takes an element in. Variance is about allowing assignments such as this in cases where it is safe. The result is that a lot of situations that were previously surprising now just work. Covariance In .NET 4.0 the IEnumerable<T> interface will be declared in the following way: public interface IEnumerable<out T> : IEnumerable { IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator<out T> : IEnumerator { bool MoveNext(); T Current { get; } } The “out” in these declarations signifies that the T can only occur in output position in the interface – the compiler will complain otherwise. In return for this restriction, the interface becomes “covariant” in T, which means that an IEnumerable<A> is considered an IEnumerable<B> if A has a reference conversion to B. As a result, any sequence of strings is also e.g. a sequence of objects. This is useful e.g. in many LINQ methods. Using the declarations above: var result = strings.Union(objects); // succeeds with an IEnumerable<object> This would previously have been disallowed, and you would have had to to some cumbersome wrapping to get the two sequences to have the same element type. Contravariance Type parameters can also have an “in” modifier, restricting them to occur only in input positions. An example is IComparer<T>: public interface IComparer<in T> { public int Compare(T left, T right); } The somewhat baffling result is that an IComparer<object> can in fact be considered an IComparer<string>! It makes sense when you think about it: If a comparer can compare any two objects, it can certainly also compare two strings. This property is referred to as contravariance. A generic type can have both in and out modifiers on its type parameters, as is the case with the Func<…> delegate types: public delegate TResult Func<in TArg, out TResult>(TArg arg); Obviously the argument only ever comes in, and the result only ever comes out. Therefore a Func<object,string> can in fact be used as a Func<string,object>. Limitations Variant type parameters can only be declared on interfaces and delegate types, due to a restriction in the CLR. Variance only applies when there is a reference conversion between the type arguments. For instance, an IEnumerable<int> is not an IEnumerable<object> because the conversion from int to object is a boxing conversion, not a reference conversion. Also please note that the CTP does not contain the new versions of the .NET types mentioned above. In order to experiment with variance you have to declare your own variant interfaces and delegate types. COM Example Here is a larger Office automation example that shows many of the new C# features in action. using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Linq; using Excel = Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel; using Word = Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word; class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var excel = new Excel.Application(); excel.Visible = true; excel.Workbooks.Add(); // optional arguments omitted excel.Cells[1, 1].Value = "Process Name"; // no casts; Value dynamically excel.Cells[1, 2].Value = "Memory Usage"; // accessed var processes = Process.GetProcesses() .OrderByDescending(p =&gt; p.WorkingSet) .Take(10); int i = 2; foreach (var p in processes) { excel.Cells[i, 1].Value = p.ProcessName; // no casts excel.Cells[i, 2].Value = p.WorkingSet; // no casts i++; } Excel.Range range = excel.Cells[1, 1]; // no casts Excel.Chart chart = excel.ActiveWorkbook.Charts. Add(After: excel.ActiveSheet); // named and optional arguments chart.ChartWizard( Source: range.CurrentRegion, Title: "Memory Usage in " + Environment.MachineName); //named+optional chart.ChartStyle = 45; chart.CopyPicture(Excel.XlPictureAppearance.xlScreen, Excel.XlCopyPictureFormat.xlBitmap, Excel.XlPictureAppearance.xlScreen); var word = new Word.Application(); word.Visible = true; word.Documents.Add(); // optional arguments word.Selection.Paste(); } } The code is much more terse and readable than the C# 3.0 counterpart. Note especially how the Value property is accessed dynamically. This is actually an indexed property, i.e. a property that takes an argument; something which C# does not understand. However the argument is optional. Since the access is dynamic, it goes through the runtime COM binder which knows to substitute the default value and call the indexed property. Thus, dynamic COM allows you to avoid accesses to the puzzling Value2 property of Excel ranges. Relationship with Visual Basic A number of the features introduced to C# 4.0 already exist or will be introduced in some form or other in Visual Basic: · Late binding in VB is similar in many ways to dynamic lookup in C#, and can be expected to make more use of the DLR in the future, leading to further parity with C#. · Named and optional arguments have been part of Visual Basic for a long time, and the C# version of the feature is explicitly engineered with maximal VB interoperability in mind. · NoPIA and variance are both being introduced to VB and C# at the same time. VB in turn is adding a number of features that have hitherto been a mainstay of C#. As a result future versions of C# and VB will have much better feature parity, for the benefit of everyone. Resources All available resources concerning C# 4.0 can be accessed through the C# Dev Center. Specifically, this white paper and other resources can be found at the Code Gallery site. Enjoy! span.fullpost {display:none;}

    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

1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >