Develop Reference

Can I transform a Func<T> into an Expression<T>? [duplicate]

Going from a lambda to an Expression is easy using a method call...
public void GimmeExpression(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
((MemberExpression)expression.Body).Member.Name; // "DoStuff"
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
GimmeExpression(() => thing.DoStuff());
}
But I would like to turn the Func in to an expression, only in rare cases...
public void ContainTheDanger(Func<T> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
dangerousCall();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// This next line does not work...
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
var nameOfDanger =
((MemberExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Member.Name;
throw new DangerContainer(
"Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}
The line that does not work gives me the compile-time error Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Func<T>' to 'System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<System.Func<T>>'. An explicit cast does not resolve the situation. Is there a facility to do this that I am overlooking?

Ooh, it's not easy at all. Func<T> represents a generic delegate and not an expression. If there's any way you could do so (due to optimizations and other things done by the compiler, some data might be thrown away, so it might be impossible to get the original expression back), it'd be disassembling the IL on the fly and inferring the expression (which is by no means easy). Treating lambda expressions as data (Expression<Func<T>>) is a magic done by the compiler (basically the compiler builds an expression tree in code instead of compiling it to IL).
Related fact
This is why languages that push lambdas to the extreme (like Lisp) are often easier to implement as interpreters. In those languages, code and data are essentially the same thing (even at run time), but our chip cannot understand that form of code, so we have to emulate such a machine by building an interpreter on top of it that understands it (the choice made by Lisp like languages) or sacrificing the power (code will no longer be exactly equal to data) to some extent (the choice made by C#). In C#, the compiler gives the illusion of treating code as data by allowing lambdas to be interpreted as code (Func<T>) and data (Expression<Func<T>>) at compile time.

private static Expression<Func<T, bool>> FuncToExpression<T>(Func<T, bool> f)
{
return x => f(x);
}

What you probably should do, is turn the method around. Take in an Expression>, and compile and run. If it fails, you already have the Expression to look into.
public void ContainTheDanger(Expression<Func<T>> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
dangerousCall().Compile().Invoke();;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// This next line does not work...
var nameOfDanger =
((MemberExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Member.Name;
throw new DangerContainer(
"Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}
Obviously you need to consider the performance implications of this, and determine if it is something that you really need to do.

If you sometimes need an expression and sometimes need a delegate, you have 2 options:
have different methods (1 for each)
always accept the Expression<...> version, and just .Compile().Invoke(...) it if you want a delegate. Obviously this has cost.

NJection.LambdaConverter is a library that converts a delegate to an expression
public class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args) {
var lambda = Lambda.TransformMethodTo<Func<string, int>>()
.From(() => Parse)
.ToLambda();
}
public static int Parse(string value) {
return int.Parse(value)
}
}

You can go the other way via the .Compile() method however - not sure if this is useful for you:
public void ContainTheDanger<T>(Expression<Func<T>> dangerousCall)
{
try
{
var expr = dangerousCall.Compile();
expr.Invoke();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
var nameOfDanger = ((MethodCallExpression)dangerousCall.Body).Method.Name;
throw new DangerContainer("Danger manifested while " + nameOfDanger, e);
}
}
public void SomewhereElse()
{
var thing = new Thing();
ContainTheDanger(() => thing.CrossTheStreams());
}

Expression<Func<T>> ToExpression<T>(Func<T> call)
{
MethodCallExpression methodCall = call.Target == null
? Expression.Call(call.Method)
: Expression.Call(Expression.Constant(call.Target), call.Method);
return Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(methodCall);
}

JB Evain from the Cecil Mono team is doing some progress to enable this
http://evain.net/blog/articles/2009/04/22/converting-delegates-to-expression-trees

Change
// This next line does not work...
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = dangerousCall;
To
// This next line works!
Expression<Func<T>> DangerousExpression = () => dangerousCall();

method queue delegate comparisons

I have a Queue that holds a list of delegates that correspond to methods that I want to run in the future. I would like to only have singular instances of any particular method/parameter in queue. In other words, a queue of DoOne(), DoTwo(2), DoThree(3) should be possible where as a queue of DoOne(), DoTwo(2), DoTwo(2) should not be allowed.
I have noticed that _queue.Contains(Func< int >) works through the minimal testing that I have done, but I am worried if I am missing something. Is this a sufficient enough test to determine whether a particular method/parameter is queued, to satisfy what I am trying to accomplish?
Queue<Func<int>> _queue = new Queue<Func<int>>();
void Queue(Func<int> Method)
{
if (!_queue.Contains(Method))
_queue.Enqueue(Method);
}
void QueueOne()
{
Queue( () => DoOne() );
}
void QueueTwo(int val)
{
Queue( () => DoTwo(val) );
}
void DoOne()
{
return 1;
}
void DoTwo(int val)
{
return val;
}

Since each time you call QueueOne or QueueTwo, you create a new function that is passed to the Queue function, I have my doubts that you can find a way to compare those to each other and determine that they match.
This leads me to recommend that you pass an identifier that you will use to make the uniqueness comparison.
In my sample code below, I chose to do this using the CallerMemberName to identify the name of the calling function (i.e. "QueueOne" or "QueueTwo") and refuse to enqueue the item if the queue still had a matching entry.
Queue<Tuple<string, Func<int>>> _queue = new Queue<Tuple<string, Func<int>>>();
void Queue(Func<int> method, [CallerMemberName] string caller = null)
{
if (!_queue.Any(v => v.Item1 == caller))
_queue.Enqueue(Tuple.Create(caller, method));
}
void QueueOne()
{
Queue(() => DoOne());
}
void QueueTwo(int val)
{
Queue(() => DoTwo(val));
}
int DoOne()
{
return 1;
}
int DoTwo(int val)
{
return val;
}

Since you are calling with a parameter they are treated different objects (see Closures in c#)
Change your logicto check the duplication to:
if (!_queue.Where(x => x.Method == Method.Method).Any())
_queue.Enqueue(m);
this will help you to stop adding same method again (even if they have diff parameters)

Find usages of method group syntax in solution

I am trying to identify usages of the "method group" syntax in my solution. The reason is that Resharper tries to help with the ConvertClosureToMethodGroup code inspection. The problem is, that the "optimized" code does not compile to the same IL code, which means that it breaks in my specific scenario. The below scenario does not break, but it illustrates what I am trying to find:
void Main()
{
var arr = new string[]{"foo"};
//This works
var bar = arr.Select(s=>MyMethod(s));
//Resharper suggests the below, which is different
//var bar = arr.Select(MyMethod);
}
string MyMethod(string s)
{
return "bar";
}
So: Is there a way, that I can identify all the places in my code, where any method is being passed as a method group?
I can disable the refactoring suggestion to prevent future usages of this, but how can I identify the places where this already happened?
EDIT 1: Example where this refactoring breaks runtime
void Main()
{
MyClass obj = null;
//This works
var lazy = new Lazy<bool>(()=> obj.MyMethod());
//This will break at runtime when obj is null
//var lazy = new Lazy<bool>(obj.MyMethod);
}
class MyClass
{
public bool MyMethod()
{
return false;
}
}

Performance Tricks for C# Logging

I am looking into C# logging and I do not want my log messages to spend any time processing if the message is below the logging threshold. The best I can see log4net does is a threshold check AFTER evaluating the log parameters.
Example:
_logger.Debug( "My complicated log message " + thisFunctionTakesALongTime() + " will take a long time" )
Even if the threshold is above Debug, thisFunctionTakesALongTime will still be evaluated.
In log4net you are supposed to use _logger.isDebugEnabled so you end up with
if( _logger.isDebugEnabled )
_logger.Debug( "Much faster" )
I want to know if there is a better solution for .net logging that does not involve a check each time I want to log.
In C++ I am allowed to do
LOG_DEBUG( "My complicated log message " + thisFunctionTakesALongTime() + " will take no time" )
since my LOG_DEBUG macro does the log level check itself. This frees me to have a 1 line log message throughout my app which I greatly prefer. Anyone know of a way to replicate this behavior in C#?

If you can target .NET 3.5 (C# 3.0) you can use extension methods to wrap the if statements.
so you can do the equivalent "macro":
logger.Log_Debug("Much faster");
logger.Log_Debug(() => { "My complicated log message " + thisFunctionTakesALongTime() + " will take no time" });
by wrapping the check in this method:
public class Log4NetExtensionMethods {
// simple string wrapper
public void Log_Debug(this log4net.ILog logger, string logMessage) {
if(logger.isDebugEnabled) {
logger.Debug(logMessage);
}
}
// this takes a delegate so you can delay execution
// of a function call until you've determined it's necessary
public void Log_Debug(this log4net.ILog logger, Func<string> logMessageDelegate) {
if(logger.isDebugEnabled) {
logger.Debug(logMessageDelegate());
}
}
}

17.4.2 The Conditional attribute
The attribute Conditional enables the definition of conditional methods. The Conditional attribute indicates a condition by testing a conditional compilation symbol. Calls to a conditional method are either included or omitted depending on whether this symbol is defined at the point of the call. If the symbol is defined, the call is included; otherwise, the call (including evaluation of the parameters of the call) is omitted.
[ Conditional("DEBUG") ]
public static void LogLine(string msg,string detail)
{
Console.WriteLine("Log: {0} = {1}",msg,detail);
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int Total = 0;
for(int Lp = 1; Lp < 10; Lp++)
{
LogLine("Total",Total.ToString());
Total = Total + Lp;
}
}

The problem here is that all method parameters must be evaluated before the method is invoked. There is no way around this, given the syntax you are using. Since C# does not have a real preprocessor or macros, you can't do anything like "LOG_DEBUG". The best you could do is use if (logger.isDebugEnable) as suggested.
The only thing I can think of is maybe using something like a lambda expression to delay evaluation. But I would warn you that this will almost certainly have more of a performance hit in the end.
internal class Sample
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
DelayedEvaluationLogger.Debug(logger, () => "This is " + Expensive() + " to log.");
}
private static string Expensive()
{
// ...
}
}
internal static class DelayedEvaluationLogger
{
public static void Debug(ILog logger, Func<string> logString)
{
if (logger.isDebugEnabled)
{
logger.Debug(logString());
}
}
}

Without a preprocessor you're SOL. Of course there's nothing preventing you from using one before feeding your code to the C# compiler.

Passing a random method as a parameter?

Is there any way in C# to pass a random method as a parameter?
To explain my question:
I want to write a simple Logger-Tool that reports the entering and leaving of a method with the passed arguments an the class and method name:
The log file I'm aiming at:
ENTERING: ClassOfDoom::MethodOfDoom( arg1={1} [int], arg2={true} [bool] )
LEAVING: ClassOfDoom::MethodOfDoom RETURNING 1 [int]
The code I have in mind:
class ClassOfDoom {
// Remeber: MethodOfDoom is a _random_ method with _random_ arguments
public int MethodOfDoom(int arg1, bool arg2) {
Log.Entering(this, this.MethodOfDoom, arg1, arg2);
...
return Log.Returing(this, this.MethodOfDoom, 1);
}
}
Is there a way to achieve this? Or isn't C# as flexible as that?
Thanks in advance!

You can make your logging function take a MethodBase argument and use MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod to pass the current method info as an argument.
Then, in the logger, you could check its properties Name and DeclaringType to get the method information. Also, passing parameters is easy by declaring a params object[] args parameter in the logging function:
public static void Entering(object obj, MethodBase methodInfo,
params object[] args) {
Console.WriteLine("ENTERING {0}:{1}", methodInfo.DeclaringType.Name,
methodInfo.Name);
...
}

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but if you are trying to make a call to Log.Entering and Log.Returning inside an arbitrary (random) method and using the method's actual parameters, you should check out PostSharp. It will allow you to inject code in a method body and then do some work based on the reflected method information you get from the .NET framework (and the actual parameters passed to the method at runtime).

You could do it with Expression easily enough - it would look something like:
Log.Capture(() => this.MethodOfDoom(arg1, arg2));
Here's an example; I've been a bit lazy using Compile().DynamicInvoke() to read the arg-values - for real code I'd try to read it more directly:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
class Program
{
DateTime MethodOfDoom(string s, int i)
{
return DateTime.Today;
}
public void RunTest()
{
int i =123;
Log.Capture(() => this.MethodOfDoom("abc", i));
}
static void Main()
{
new Program().RunTest();
}
}
static class Log
{
public static T Capture<T>(Expression<Func<T>> method)
{
MethodCallExpression mce = method.Body as MethodCallExpression;
if (mce == null) throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Method-call expected");
string name = mce.Method.Name;
try
{
int i = 0;
foreach(var param in mce.Method.GetParameters())
{
object argValue = Expression.Lambda(mce.Arguments[i++])
.Compile().DynamicInvoke();
Trace.WriteLine(param.Name + "=" + argValue, name);
}
Trace.WriteLine("ENTERING", name);
T result = method.Compile().Invoke();
Trace.WriteLine("EXITING: " + result, name);
return result;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Trace.WriteLine("EXCEPTION: " + ex, name);
throw;
}
}
}

If widely used in your code, this scenario is best implemented using Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) techniques. There are different frameworks that can be used (such as Spring.NET AOP), which you can use in your .NET application. Here is a reference article that might help you get started:
http://www.developer.com/lang/article.php/10924_3795031_2
The referenced article gives you the logging enter/exit scenario as an example.

I have used PostSharp to do this very thing before.