Develop Reference

c# dynamic as delegate parameter

Heyo,
i'm currently working on a school assignment and we should use delegate's.
So I got a delegate:
public delegate AVLNode Insert(AVLNode node, dynamic key);
And I got two different Insert Methods, the one takes a node and a string and the other one should take a node and a float as a paramter.
The problem I face now is that the delegate doesn't accept these method's because they don't match.
How can I fix tis issue without declaring the string and the int parameter as a dynamic? Sorry if my problem isn't described well, first time describing any coding problem.
Like I already said, I want a delegate with a dynamic as the parameter while both methods which will be used with the delegate have either a string or a int as the parameter.

Out of curiosity, why do you want a dynamic parameter for your key over an object which is also accepting of every type? You can then use pattern matching to ensure they are either a float or a string since you can't overload delegates. Making something dynamic also involves a lot of type checking during runtime. Why a delegate for an insert method? Do you want users to write their own insert method into a collection I assume is managed by a class? That makes no guarantee the insert delegate will insert successfully.
Generally, you mostly see delegates being used as guaranteed signatures that fulfill an operation that the user defines. For example: TimerCallback being a delegate for what happens every time a timer ticks, SpanAction<T, TArg> for letting users work with a given span and state object, custom events letting users create their own operations when something occurs, etc.
Anyways, wherever you're using your delegate, you want to make sure it is either a string or a float/int (you used both float and int seemingly interchangeably in your description). You can use this example to check for both types:
public static void Main()
{
var dyn = func(); // Returns dynamic, unknown type
if (dyn is string s)
Console.WriteLine($"string: {s}");
else if (dyn is int i)
Console.WriteLine($"int: {i}");
else if (dyn is float f) Console.WriteLine($"float: {f}");
}
Or you can use regular if statements:
public static void Main()
{
var dyn = func(); // Returns dynamic, unknown type
switch (dyn)
{
case string s:
Console.WriteLine($"string: {s}");
break;
case int i:
Console.WriteLine($"int: {i}");
break;
case float f:
Console.WriteLine($"float: {f}");
break;
}
}
But seriously, I cannot stress this enough: everything you want can very likely just be done with the object type!!! While both object and dynamic types allow for any object, dynamic allows for even specified derived types to be reassigned to any other type! For example:
public static void Main()
{
var dyn = GetDynamicInt(); // dynamic int
var n = GetInt(); // not dynamic int
dyn = Random.Shared.NextDouble(); // Now it's not an int but do you know that? Will you know that?
n = Random.Shared.NextDouble(); // Guaranteed type, this throws
}

C#: Difference between Tuple<object, object> and (object, object) [duplicate]

I decompiled some C# 7 libraries and saw ValueTuple generics being used. What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.tuple
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.valuetuple

What are ValueTuples and why not Tuple instead?
A ValueTuple is a struct which reflects a tuple, same as the original System.Tuple class.
The main difference between Tuple and ValueTuple are:
System.ValueTuple is a value type (struct), while System.Tuple is a reference type (class). This is meaningful when talking about allocations and GC pressure.
System.ValueTuple isn't only a struct, it's a mutable one, and one has to be careful when using them as such. Think what happens when a class holds a System.ValueTuple as a field.
System.ValueTuple exposes its items via fields instead of properties.
Until C# 7, using tuples wasn't very convenient. Their field names are Item1, Item2, etc, and the language hadn't supplied syntax sugar for them like most other languages do (Python, Scala).
When the .NET language design team decided to incorporate tuples and add syntax sugar to them at the language level an important factor was performance. With ValueTuple being a value type, you can avoid GC pressure when using them because (as an implementation detail) they'll be allocated on the stack.
Additionally, a struct gets automatic (shallow) equality semantics by the runtime, where a class doesn't. Although the design team made sure there will be an even more optimized equality for tuples, hence implemented a custom equality for it.
Here is a paragraph from the design notes of Tuples:
Struct or Class:
As mentioned, I propose to make tuple types structs rather than
classes, so that no allocation penalty is associated with them. They
should be as lightweight as possible.
Arguably, structs can end up being more costly, because assignment
copies a bigger value. So if they are assigned a lot more than they
are created, then structs would be a bad choice.
In their very motivation, though, tuples are ephemeral. You would use
them when the parts are more important than the whole. So the common
pattern would be to construct, return and immediately deconstruct
them. In this situation structs are clearly preferable.
Structs also have a number of other benefits, which will become
obvious in the following.
Examples:
You can easily see that working with System.Tuple becomes ambiguous very quickly. For example, say we have a method which calculates a sum and a count of a List<Int>:
public Tuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var sum = 0;
var count = 0;
foreach (var value in values) { sum += value; count++; }
return new Tuple(sum, count);
}
On the receiving end, we end up with:
Tuple<int, int> result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
// What is Item1 and what is Item2?
// Which one is the sum and which is the count?
Console.WriteLine(result.Item1);
Console.WriteLine(result.Item2);
The way you can deconstruct value tuples into named arguments is the real power of the feature:
public (int sum, int count) DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var res = (sum: 0, count: 0);
foreach (var value in values) { res.sum += value; res.count++; }
return res;
}
And on the receiving end:
var result = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {result.sum}, Count: {result.count}");
Or:
var (sum, count) = DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine($"Sum: {sum}, Count: {count}");
Compiler goodies:
If we look under the cover of our previous example, we can see exactly how the compiler is interpreting ValueTuple when we ask it to deconstruct:
[return: TupleElementNames(new string[] {
"sum",
"count"
})]
public ValueTuple<int, int> DoStuff(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
ValueTuple<int, int> result;
result..ctor(0, 0);
foreach (int current in values)
{
result.Item1 += current;
result.Item2++;
}
return result;
}
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> expr_0E = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
int item = expr_0E.Item1;
int arg_1A_0 = expr_0E.Item2;
}
Internally, the compiled code utilizes Item1 and Item2, but all of this is abstracted away from us since we work with a decomposed tuple. A tuple with named arguments gets annotated with the TupleElementNamesAttribute. If we use a single fresh variable instead of decomposing, we get:
public void Foo()
{
ValueTuple<int, int> valueTuple = this.DoStuff(Enumerable.Range(0, 10));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Sum: {0}, Count: {1})", valueTuple.Item1, valueTuple.Item2));
}
Note that the compiler still has to make some magic happen (via the attribute) when we debug our application, as it would be odd to see Item1, Item2.

The difference between Tuple and ValueTuple is that Tuple is a reference type and ValueTuple is a value type. The latter is desirable because changes to the language in C# 7 have tuples being used much more frequently, but allocating a new object on the heap for every tuple is a performance concern, particularly when it's unnecessary.
However, in C# 7, the idea is that you never have to explicitly use either type because of the syntax sugar being added for tuple use. For example, in C# 6, if you wanted to use a tuple to return a value, you would have to do the following:
public Tuple<string, int> GetValues()
{
// ...
return new Tuple(stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
However, in C# 7, you can use this:
public (string, int) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.Item1;
You can even go a step further and give the values names:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var value = GetValues();
string s = value.S;
... Or deconstruct the tuple entirely:
public (string S, int I) GetValues()
{
// ...
return (stringVal, intVal);
}
var (S, I) = GetValues();
string s = S;
Tuples weren't often used in C# pre-7 because they were cumbersome and verbose, and only really used in cases where building a data class/struct for just a single instance of work would be more trouble than it was worth. But in C# 7, tuples have language-level support now, so using them is much cleaner and more useful.

I looked at the source for both Tuple and ValueTuple. The difference is that Tuple is a class and ValueTuple is a struct that implements IEquatable.
That means that Tuple == Tuple will return false if they are not the same instance, but ValueTuple == ValueTuple will return true if they are of the same type and Equals returns true for each of the values they contain.

In addition to the comments above, one unfortunate gotcha of ValueTuple is that, as a value type, the named arguments get erased when compiled to IL, so they're not available for serialisation at runtime.
i.e. Your sweet named arguments will still end up as "Item1", "Item2", etc. when serialised via e.g. Json.NET.

Other answers forgot to mention important points.Instead of rephrasing, I'm gonna reference the XML documentation from source code:
The ValueTuple types (from arity 0 to 8) comprise the runtime implementation that underlies
tuples in C# and struct tuples in F#.
Aside from created via language syntax, they are most easily created via the
ValueTuple.Create factory methods.
The System.ValueTuple types differ from the System.Tuple types in that:
they are structs rather than classes,
they are mutable rather than readonly, and
their members (such as Item1, Item2, etc) are fields rather than properties.
With introduction of this type and C# 7.0 compiler, you can easily write
(int, string) idAndName = (1, "John");
And return two values from a method:
private (int, string) GetIdAndName()
{
//.....
return (id, name);
}
Contrary to System.Tuple you can update its members (Mutable) because they are public read-write Fields that can be given meaningful names:
(int id, string name) idAndName = (1, "John");
idAndName.name = "New Name";

Late-joining to add a quick clarification on these two factoids:
they are structs rather than classes
they are mutable rather than readonly
One would think that changing value-tuples en-masse would be straightforward:
foreach (var x in listOfValueTuples) { x.Foo = 103; } // wont even compile because x is a value (struct) not a variable
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo;
Someone might try to workaround this like so:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples.Select(x => x.Foo = 103);
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' should be 103 right? wrong! it is '10'
The reason for this quirky behavior is that the value-tuples are exactly value-based (structs) and thus the .Select(...) call works on cloned-structs rather than on the originals. To resolve this we must resort to:
// initially *.Foo = 10 for all items
listOfValueTuples = listOfValueTuples
.Select(x => {
x.Foo = 103;
return x;
})
.ToList();
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Alternatively of course one might try the straightforward approach:
for (var i = 0; i < listOfValueTuples.Length; i++) {
listOfValueTuples[i].Foo = 103; //this works just fine
// another alternative approach:
//
// var x = listOfValueTuples[i];
// x.Foo = 103;
// listOfValueTuples[i] = x; //<-- vital for this alternative approach to work if you omit this changes wont be saved to the original list
}
var d = listOfValueTuples[0].Foo; // 'd' is now 103 indeed
Hope this helps someone struggling to make heads of tails out of list-hosted value-tuples.

How can I parse a string that represents a chain of generic methods?

In my app I need to parse a string like this, ".Add(20).Subtract(10).Add(2)" in a generic way into a series of method calls. In code I will supply the user with a value of T, and then expect the user to type an expression of the above format to calculate a new T from the expression. In the above example, I show the user an int and they typed the above string.
I need to aggregate any number of these chained string-representation of method calls into one cache-able property (delegate? Func<T,T>?) so that whenever a new value of T comes along it can be passed through the cached expression.
I initially thought there would be a way to aggregate these like a functional-programming pipeline, the outcome being a Func<T,T> that could represent the pipeline of methods. I'm guaranteed to know typeof(T) beforehand.
I'm hitting issues. Here's where I'm at:
I can regex the string with
\.(?<expName>[A-Z,a-z]+)\((?<expValue>[^)]+)\)
To get these matches:
expName
expValue
"Add"
"20"
"Subtract"
"10"
"Add"
"2"
I was expecting to use a TypeConverter to parse all expValue matches but I realized that given an arbitrary method T Foo(object arg) the arg can be any type to be determined by the specific method. The only guarantee is that a T input should always result in a T output.
We already know what type T is so we can theoretically map typeof(T) to a set of strings representing method names. I tried creating Dictionaries like this:
public static readonly Dictionary<string, Func<double, double, double>> DoubleMethods = new Dictionary<string, Func<double, double, double>>()
{
{"Add",(d,v)=>d+v },
{"Subtract",(d,v)=>d-v },
{"Multiply",(d,v)=>d*v },
{"Divide",(d,v)=>d/v }
};
public static Dictionary<string, Func<T, T, T>> TypeMethods<T>(Type t)
{
if(t.GetType() == typeof(double)) { return DoubleMethods; }
}
This won't compile, as I can't mix generics like this.
How do I create a linking structure that maps strings of predefined method names to a method, and then pass it the arg?
I also see that I will incur a bunch of boxing/unboxing penalties for arguments that happen to be primitive types, as in the example int.Add(int addedVal) method.
I believe I'm delving into parser/lexer territory without much familiarity.
Can you give an example of some code to point me in the right direction?

I'm not sure I see the need for the generics part:
var ops = "Add(20).Subtract(10).Divide(2).Multiply(5)";//25
var res = ops
.Split("().".ToCharArray(), StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Chunk(2)
.Aggregate(0.0,(r,arr)=> r = DoubleMethods[arr[0]](r, double.Parse(arr[1])));
All those inputs parse as double, so let's just break the input string into chunks of 2 after splitting on the punctuation:
Add 20
Subtract 10
Divide 2
Multiply 5
Then run an agg op where we start from 0 (I wanted to start from 20 actually so that is what the add 20 is for)
The agg op looks up the method to call in the dictionary using the first element of the chunk
DoubleMethods[arr[0]]
And calls it passing in the current accumulator value r and the double parsing of the second element of the chunk:
(r, double.Parse(arr[1]))
and store the result into the accumulator for passing into the next op
I commented "do it in decimal" because it doesn't have floating point imprecision, but I used double just because your code did; you could swap to using decimal if you like, main point being that I can't see why you're worried about generics when decimal/double can store values one would encounter in ints too.

//basevalue is the value of the code your applying the change to.
soo... lets pretend the class is called number
Number ect = new Number(startingAmount)
in number we would have startingAmount = this.baseValue
public static T add(T baseValue, T change){
return baseValue+change;
}
public static T subtract(T baseValue, T change){
return baseValue-change;
}
public static T multiply(T baseValue, T change){
return baseValue*change;
}
public static T divide(T baseValue, T change){
return baseValue/change;
}
This should work... At least I hope it does
Here is a video on generics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1iu1kXkVoA&t=1s
Java == c# so everything should be almost exactly the same

Methods for dynamically creating an array in C#

First, I don't have much experience in .Net - especially within the last 7 years.
I'm trying to develop an application and would to incorporate another library (https://github.com/Giorgi/Math-Expression-Evaluator)
That library allows me to evaluate math expressions like Evaluate("a+b", a: 1,b: 1). The method signature is public decimal Evaluate(string expression, object argument = null)
I would like to understand better how .Net translates comma-separated arguments into a single "argument".
I'm not sure how to create that argument dynamically.. for example, iterating through a list of values and creating an object that will match the appropriate argument for that signature.
I'm really just looking for pointers for documentation and more information.. Thanks for anything.
EDIT: Sorry.. purposely left it broad because I wasn't looking for people to do my work for me.. just can't seem to find a starting point to do my own research.
The method is called like
dynamic engine = new ExpressionEvaluator() ;
engine.Evaluate("(c+b)*a", a: 6, b: 4.5, c: 2.6)) ;
In the body of Evalute() is this code (which turns that argument into a Dictionary of String, Decimal pairs.
if (argument == null)
{
return new Dictionary<string, decimal>();
}
var argumentType = argument.GetType();
var properties = argumentType.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
.Where(p => p.CanRead && IsNumeric(p.PropertyType));
var arguments = properties.ToDictionary(property => property.Name,
property => Convert.ToDecimal(property.GetValue(argument, null)));
return arguments;
What I'd like to be able to do is parse a String like "a:1,b:2" and turn it into an object that matches that Evaluate() signature.

That library is using high level magic... Very high level :-)
The trick is that the class is declared as:
public class ExpressionEvaluator : DynamicObject
So it is a class that implements the dynamic magic introduced in .NET 4.0
Now... In the class there are two Evaluate methods:
public decimal Evaluate(string expression, object argument = null)
and
private decimal Evaluate(string expression, Dictionary<string, decimal> arguments)
The only method normally visible and usable is the first one. It is used like:
engine.Evaluate("a + b + c", new { a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 });
The new { ... } creates an anonymous object, that is then "unpacked" here through the use of reflection to a Dictionary<string, decimal> to be fed to the private Evaluate().
If you try to use the other notation, the one like:
engine.Evaluate("a + b + c", a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 });
then the .NET can't match the method to the public Evaluate() that is present, but the class, being a subclass of DynamicObject, causes the C# compiler to write some "magic" code that launches this method (that is still implemented by the ExpressionEvaluator):
public override bool TryInvokeMember(InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result)
That first checks that we want to call Evaluate:
if (nameof(Evaluate) != binder.Name)
and if we are trying to call Evaluate, it unpacks the parameters to a new Dictionary<string, decimal>() and then calls the private Evaluate().
As a sidenote, to use the "dynamic" way of writing Evaluate you have to declare the engine variable like;
dynamic dynamicEngine = new ExpressionEvaluator();
So using the dynamic variable type.
Now... As the library is written you can:
Use an anonymous object, with the problem that anonymous objects must have their "shape" defined at compile time (so at compile time you must know that you will need a a, a b and a c. You can't need a d at runtime if you didn't create a new { a, b, c, d } at compile time). See for example a response I gave three years ago about how to create dynamic anonymous types at runtime. One of the reasons I gave for that block of code was:
there are parts of the .NET framework that heavily use reflection to render objects (for example all the various datagrids). These parts are incompatible with dynamic objects and often don't support object[]. A solution is often to encapsulate the data in a DataTable... or you can use this :-)
Note that in one of the comments to that response there is a link to a modified version of my code used by one of the many implementations of Dynamic.Linq.
Use a non-anonymous object (a new Foo { a = 1, b = 2 c = 3 }). The library doesn't make distinctions between anonymous and non-anonymous objects. So same limitation as before, because at compile time you need a Foo class with the right number of parameters
Use the dynamic notation. Sadly even that is quite static. You can't easily add new parameters, that for the number and name of the "variables" must be defined at compile time.
A possible solution is to modify the source code (it is a single file) and make public this method:
private decimal Evaluate(string expression, Dictionary<string, decimal> arguments)
then you can easily and dynamically populate the Dictionary<string, decimal> arguments

Any tips to make working with Tuples easier in C#?

Often you want to send multiple values but due to low use (i.e. it is only used in one or two places), it's hard to justify creating a new type.
The Tuple<...> and KeyValuePair<,> type are very useful, but there isn't real language support for them.
Well sort of, a nice trick to use for Lists of tuples is to create a type that extends the List and adding a custom add method:
e.g.
public class TupleList<T1,T2> : List<Tuple<T1,T2>>{
public void Add(T1 key, T2 value){
base.Add(Tuple.Create(key, value));
}
}
This means that if I have a method that takes an IEnumerable<Tuple<int,string>>, I can use the following code to quickly build up the list like so::
Foo(new TupleList<int,string>{{1,"one"},{2,"two"},{3,"three"}});
This makes winding values into a tuple list easier as we don't have to constantly keep saying Tuple.Create, and gets us almost to a nice functional languages syntax.
But when working with a tuple it is useful to unwind it out into its different components. This extension method might be useful in this respect::
public static void Unwind<T1,T2>(this Tuple<T1,T2> tuple,out T1 var1,out T2 var2)
{
var1 = tuple.Item1;
var2 = tuple.Item2;
}
But even that's annoying as out parameters are not variant at all. That is if T1 is a string, I can't send in an object variable even though they are assignable, when as I can do the unwinding by hand otherwise. I can't really suggest a reason why you might want this variance, but if its there, I can't see why you would want to lose it.
Anyone have other tips to making working tuples, or tuple like objects easier in C#?
An important potential use for tuples might be generic memoization. Which is very easy in languages like F#, but hard in C#.
I'm currently using Tuples to supply a MethodBase and an array of tokens (constants, objects, or argument tokens), supplied to a dynamicly built object to construct certain member fields.
Since I wanted to make the syntax easier on API consumers, I created Add methods that can take a ConstructorInfo or a MethodInfo and a params array of objects.
Edit:
Eric Lippert as usual has excellent motivation for using Tuples here and he even says what I suspected there really is no support:
What requirement was the tuple designed to solve?

In C# you can alias closed generic types, which Tuple is, this enables you to provide some better insight to what is intended. Doesn't change code much, but if you look at the example below the intent of what GetTemp is returning is better.
Without alias:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var result = GetTemp(10, 10);
Console.WriteLine("Temp for {0} is {1}", result.Item2, result.Item1);
}
// You give a lat & a long and you get the closest city & temp for it
static Tuple<double, string> GetTemp(double lat, double #long)
{
// just for example
return Tuple.Create(10d, "Mordor");
}
}
}
With alias:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
using CityTemp = Tuple<double, string>;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var result = GetTemp(10, 10);
Console.WriteLine("Temp for {0} is {1}", result.Item2, result.Item1);
}
// You give a lat & a long and you get the closest city & temp for it
static CityTemp GetTemp(double lat, double #long)
{
// just for example
return new CityTemp(10, "Mordor");
}
}
}

Use Mono! They have experimental support for binding variables to tuple members so you could call a method like
Tuple<string, string, string, int, string> ParseUri (string url);
using code like
(user, password, host, port, path) = ParseUri (url);

There will be an awesome tuple feature coming with c#7 / visual studio 15.
basically you can do soething like that
static (int x, int y) DoSomething()
{
return (1, 2);
}
static void Test()
{
var cool = DoSomething();
var value = cool.x;
}
Read according post