I see the great advantage of turning on (non-)nullable reference types, but I have quite a few methods with optional parameters and I am wondering what the right way to correct the warnings yielded by the compiler is.
Making the parameter nullable by annotating the type with ? takes all of the goodness away. Another idea is to turn all methods with optional parameters into separate methods, which is quite a lot of work and yields high complexity (exponential explosion of parameter combinations).
I was thinking about something like this, but I really question if that it a good approach (performance-wise etc.) beyond the first glance:
[Fact]
public void Test()
{
Assert.Equal("nothing", Helper().ValueOrFallbackTo("nothing"));
Assert.Equal("foo", Helper("foo").ValueOrFallbackTo("whatever"));
}
public static Optional<string> Helper(Optional<string> x = default)
{
return x;
}
public readonly ref struct Optional<T>
{
private readonly bool initialized;
private readonly T value;
public Optional(T value)
{
initialized = true;
this.value = value;
}
public T ValueOrFallbackTo(T fallbackValue)
{
return initialized ? value : fallbackValue;
}
public static implicit operator Optional<T>(T value)
{
return new Optional<T>(value);
}
}
This look's like F#'s Option. This can be emulated in C# 8 up to a point with pattern matching expressions. This struct :
readonly struct Option<T>
{
public readonly T Value {get;}
public readonly bool IsSome {get;}
public readonly bool IsNone =>!IsSome;
public Option(T value)=>(Value,IsSome)=(value,true);
public void Deconstruct(out T value)=>(value)=(Value);
}
//Convenience methods, similar to F#'s Option module
static class Option
{
public static Option<T> Some<T>(T value)=>new Option<T>(value);
public static Option<T> None<T>()=>default;
...
}
Should allow code like this :
static string Test(Option<MyClass> opt = default)
{
return opt switch
{
Option<MyClass> { IsNone: true } => "None",
Option<MyClass> (var v) => $"Some {v.SomeText}",
};
}
The first option uses property pattern matching to check for None, while the second one uses positional pattern matching to actually extract the value through the deconstructor.
The nice thing is that the compiler recognizes this as an exhaustive match so we don't need to add a default clause.
Unfortunately, a Roslyn bug prevents this. The linked issue actually tries to create an Option class based on an abstract base class. This was fixed in VS 2019 16.4 Preview 1.
The fixed compiler allows us to omit the parameter or pass a None :
class MyClass
{
public string SomeText { get; set; } = "";
}
...
Console.WriteLine( Test() );
Console.WriteLine( Test(Option.None<MyClass>()) );
var c = new MyClass { SomeText = "Cheese" };
Console.WriteLine( Test(Option.Some(c)) );
This produces :
None
None
Some Cheese
VS 2019 16.4 should come out at the same time as .NET Core 3.1 in a few weeks.
Until then, an uglier solution could be to return IsSome in the deconstructor and use positional pattern matching in both cases:
public readonly struct Option<T>
{
public readonly T Value {get;}
public readonly bool IsSome {get;}
public readonly bool IsNone =>!IsSome;
public Option(T value)=>(Value,IsSome)=(value,true);
public void Deconstruct(out T value,out bool isSome)=>(value,isSome)=(Value,IsSome);
public void Deconstruct(out T value)=>(value)=(Value);
}
And
return opt switch { Option<MyClass> (_ ,false) =>"None",
Option<MyClass> (var v,true) => $"Some {v.SomeText}" , };
Borrowing from F# Options
No matter which technique we use, we can add extension methods to the Option static class that mimic F#'s Option module, eg Bind, perhaps the most useful method, applies a function to an Option if it has a value and returns an Option, or returns None if there's no value :
public static Option<U> Bind<T,U>(this Option<T> inp,Func<T,Option<U>> func)
{
return inp switch { Option<T> (_ ,false) =>Option.None<U>(),
Option<T> (var v,true) => func(v) ,
};
}
For example this applies the Format method to an Option to create a Optino :
Option<string> Format(MyClass c)
{
return Option.Some($"Some {c.SomeText}");
}
var c=new MyClass { SomeText = "Cheese"};
var opt=Option.Some(c);
var message=opt.Bind(Format);
This makes it easy to create other helper functions, or chain functions that produce options
Related
Reading this, I learned it was possible to allow a method to accept parameters of multiple types by making it a generic method. In the example, the following code is used with a type constraint to ensure "U" is an IEnumerable<T>.
public T DoSomething<U, T>(U arg) where U : IEnumerable<T>
{
return arg.First();
}
I found some more code which allowed adding multiple type constraints, such as:
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: ParentClass, ChildClass
{
//do something
}
However, this code appears to enforce that arg must be both a type of ParentClass and ChildClass. What I want to do is say that arg could be a type of ParentClass or ChildClass in the following manner:
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: string OR Exception
{
//do something
}
Your help is appreciated as always!
That is not possible. You can, however, define overloads for specific types:
public void test(string a, string arg);
public void test(string a, Exception arg);
If those are part of a generic class, they will be preferred over the generic version of the method.
Botz answer is 100% correct, here's a short explanation:
When you are writing a method (generic or not) and declaring the types of the parameters that the method takes you are defining a contract:
If you give me an object that knows how to do the set of things that
Type T knows how to do I can deliver either 'a': a return value of the
type I declare, or 'b': some sort of behavior that uses that type.
If you try and give it more than one type at a time (by having an or) or try to get it to return a value that might be more than one type that contract gets fuzzy:
If you give me an object that knows how to jump rope or knows how to calculate pi
to the 15th digit I'll return either an object that can go fishing or maybe mix
concrete.
The problem is that when you get into the method you have no idea if they've given you an IJumpRope or a PiFactory. Furthermore, when you go ahead and use the method (assuming that you've gotten it to magically compile) you're not really sure if you have a Fisher or an AbstractConcreteMixer. Basically it makes the whole thing way more confusing.
The solution to your problem is one of two possiblities:
Define more than one method that defines each possible transformation, behavior, or whatever. That's Botz's answer. In the programming world this is referred to as Overloading the method.
Define a base class or interface that knows how to do all the things that you need for the method and have one method take just that type. This may involve wrapping up a string and Exception in a small class to define how you plan on mapping them to the implementation, but then everything is super clear and easy to read. I could come, four years from now and read your code and easily understand what's going on.
Which you choose depends on how complicated choice 1 and 2 would be and how extensible it needs to be.
So for your specific situation I'm going to imagine you're just pulling out a message or something from the exception:
public interface IHasMessage
{
string GetMessage();
}
public void test(string a, IHasMessage arg)
{
//Use message
}
Now all you need are methods that transform a string and an Exception to an IHasMessage. Very easy.
If ChildClass means it is derived from ParentClass, you may just write the following to accept both ParentClass and ChildClass;
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: ParentClass
{
//do something
}
On the otherhand, if you want to use two different types with no inheritance relation between them, you should consider the types implementing the same interface;
public interface ICommonInterface
{
string SomeCommonProperty { get; set; }
}
public class AA : ICommonInterface
{
public string SomeCommonProperty
{
get;set;
}
}
public class BB : ICommonInterface
{
public string SomeCommonProperty
{
get;
set;
}
}
then you can write your generic function as;
public void Test<T>(string a, T arg) where T : ICommonInterface
{
//do something
}
As old as this question is I still get random upvotes on my explanation above. The explanation still stands perfectly fine as it is, but I'm going to answer a second time with a type that's served me well as a substitute for union types (the strongly-typed answer to the question that's not directly supported by C# as is).
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace Union {
[DebuggerDisplay("{currType}: {ToString()}")]
public struct Either<TP, TA> {
enum CurrType {
Neither = 0,
Primary,
Alternate,
}
private readonly CurrType currType;
private readonly TP primary;
private readonly TA alternate;
public bool IsNeither => currType == CurrType.Neither;
public bool IsPrimary => currType == CurrType.Primary;
public bool IsAlternate => currType == CurrType.Alternate;
public static implicit operator Either<TP, TA>(TP val) => new Either<TP, TA>(val);
public static implicit operator Either<TP, TA>(TA val) => new Either<TP, TA>(val);
public static implicit operator TP(Either<TP, TA> #this) => #this.Primary;
public static implicit operator TA(Either<TP, TA> #this) => #this.Alternate;
public override string ToString() {
string description = IsNeither ? "" :
$": {(IsPrimary ? typeof(TP).Name : typeof(TA).Name)}";
return $"{currType.ToString("")}{description}";
}
public Either(TP val) {
currType = CurrType.Primary;
primary = val;
alternate = default(TA);
}
public Either(TA val) {
currType = CurrType.Alternate;
alternate = val;
primary = default(TP);
}
public TP Primary {
get {
Validate(CurrType.Primary);
return primary;
}
}
public TA Alternate {
get {
Validate(CurrType.Alternate);
return alternate;
}
}
private void Validate(CurrType desiredType) {
if (desiredType != currType) {
throw new InvalidOperationException($"Attempting to get {desiredType} when {currType} is set");
}
}
}
}
The above class represents a type that can be either TP or TA. You can use it as such (the types refer back to my original answer):
// ...
public static Either<FishingBot, ConcreteMixer> DemoFunc(Either<JumpRope, PiCalculator> arg) {
if (arg.IsPrimary) {
return new FishingBot(arg.Primary);
}
return new ConcreteMixer(arg.Secondary);
}
// elsewhere:
var fishBotOrConcreteMixer = DemoFunc(new JumpRope());
var fishBotOrConcreteMixer = DemoFunc(new PiCalculator());
Important Notes:
You'll get runtime errors if you don't check IsPrimary first.
You can check any of IsNeither IsPrimary or IsAlternate.
You can access the value through Primary and Alternate
There are implicit converters between TP/TA and Either<TP, TA> to allow you to pass either the values or an Either anywhere where one is expected. If you do pass an Either where a TA or TP is expected, but the Either contains the wrong type of value you'll get a runtime error.
I typically use this where I want a method to return either a result or an error. It really cleans up that style code. I also very occasionally (rarely) use this as a replacement for method overloads. Realistically this is a very poor substitute for such an overload.
in java I could easily describe an enum with aditional data.
I could describe it something like this
public enum OperatorType
{
GreaterOrEqual (">=", "GreaterOrEqual"),
Greater (">" ,"Greater"),
Less ("<", "Less"),
LessOrEqual ("<=", "LessOrEqual"),
Equal ("==", "Equal"),
Between ("Between", "Between"),
Around ("Around","Around");
private final String symbol;
private final String name;
private OperatorType(final String symbol, final String name) {
this.symbol = symbol;
this.name = name;
}
}
And then add a static method that iterates over values(), adds all data to a hashmap and allow to retrieve from the map full enum data by one of its attriburtes as a key.
In brief, enum is a very developed type in java.
Now,
moving to c#, what are my options?
I want to hold an enum with its attributes, load it to a map, and retreive by key when I need. Do I have anything to assist (like, a singletone for each enum - which is not a good idea).
Thanks.
I would just create a class with public static readonly instances of each type and ditch enums altogether. You can use them as dictionary keys or do whatever you like. If you still intend to map them to an underlying data type (int) then you can create implicit operators for that too.
public class OperatorType
{
private static readonly Dictionary<int, OperatorType> OperatorMapping = new Dictionary<int, OperatorType>();
public static readonly OperatorType GreaterOrEqual = new OperatorType(0, ">=", "GreaterOrEqual");
public static readonly OperatorType Greater = new OperatorType(1, ">", "Greater");
public readonly String symbol;
public readonly String name;
private readonly int underlyingValue;
private OperatorType(int underlyingValue, string symbol, string name) {
this.underlyingValue = underlyingValue;
OperatorMapping[underlyingValue] = this;
this.symbol = symbol;
this.name = name;
}
public static implicit operator int(OperatorType operatorType)
{
return operatorType.underlyingValue;
}
public static implicit operator OperatorType(int value)
{
return OperatorMapping[value];
}
}
Sample usage:
Dictionary<OperatorType, string> operators = new Dictionary<OperatorType, string>();
operators.Add(OperatorType.GreaterOrEqual, "Greater or equal");
Console.WriteLine(operators[OperatorType.GreaterOrEqual]); //"Greater or equal"
OperatorType operatorType = 1;
Console.WriteLine(operatorType.name); //"Greater"
If you don't care about an underlying value, don't include it. Also consider whether or not the Dictionary mapping should be threadsafe for your usage. You can also expose a static IEnumerable<OperatorType> (or other collection) to get all operators defined if you want.
EDIT: On second thought, explicit operators are possibly preferable instead of implicit, both to conform with typical .NET best practices and to better match typical enum conversions.
The most convinient workaround might be to create an extension method to your enum type, and return the associated symbols.
Something like this:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
tester t = tester.x;
t.testenums();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public static class ext
{
public static void testenums(this tester x)
{
Console.WriteLine(x.ToString());
}
}
public enum tester
{
x,
y
}
}
Of course you can write a more complex extension method, with return value, etc, this is just an example how to do it.
You can create an attribute:
public class EnumKeyAttribute : Attribute
{
public string Key { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public EnumKeyAttribute(string key, string description)
{
this.Key = key;
this.Description = description;
}
}
Then apply it to your enum
public enum OperatorType
{
[EnumKey(">=", "GreaterOrEqual")]
GreaterOrEqual,
[EnumKey(">", "Greater")]
Greater,
[EnumKey("<", "Less")]
Less,
[EnumKey("<=", "LessOrEqual")]
LessOrEqual,
[EnumKey("==", "Equal")]
Equal,
[EnumKey("Between", "Between")]
Between,
[EnumKey("Around", "Around")]
Around
}
To get the attribute data you can use reflection. Below is an example of getting the attribute for "Less"
MemberInfo memberInfo = typeof(OperatorType).GetMember(OperatorType.Less.ToString()).FirstOrDefault();
if(memberInfo != null)
{
EnumKeyAttribute attribute = (EnumKeyAttribute)memberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(EnumKeyAttribute), false).FirstOrDefault();
Console.WriteLine(attribute.Key);
Console.WriteLine(attribute.Description);
}
But because these enums are not created at runtime you can increase your efficiency by creating a static method that looks up the value in a dictionary. Do this as an extension method for ease of use
public static class KeyFinder
{
private static Dictionary<OperatorType, EnumKeyAttribute> lookupTable =
new Dictionary<OperatorType, EnumKeyAttribute>();
public static EnumKeyAttribute GetKey(this OperatorType type)
{
if (lookupTable.ContainsKey(type))
{
return lookupTable[type];
}
MemberInfo memberInfo = typeof(OperatorType).GetMember(type.ToString()).FirstOrDefault();
if (memberInfo != null)
{
EnumKeyAttribute attribute = (EnumKeyAttribute)memberInfo.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(EnumKeyAttribute), false).FirstOrDefault();
if (attribute != null)
{
lookupTable.Add(type, attribute);
return attribute;
}
}
// add a null value so next time it doesn't use reflection only to find nothing
lookupTable.Add(type, null);
return null;
}
}
So now to get the values you simply do the following:
OperatorType.Less.GetKey().Key
OperatorType.Less.GetKey().Description
Just be careful of null reference exceptions (since it will return null if it can't find an attribute). If you want to find by key you can simply create other extension methods that use the string value as the key.
C# doesn't really have the same feature. However there are several possibilities to get really close (and potentially more flexible as well).
Sticking to regular enums, you could use attributes to enrich with extra information. Of course, this requires reflection to work with that
public enum OperatorType
{
[DisplayName(">=")]
GreaterOrEqual,
// ...
}
There are several patterns to work with this, e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/28087/DisplayNameAttribute-for-Enumerations, google for more.
Another approach can be to enhance your enumeration types using regular classes:
public class OperatorType
{
public static OperatorType GreaterOrEqual = new OperatorType(">=", "GreaterOrEqual");
// ...
string symbol;
string name;
private OperatorType(string symbol, string name)
{
this.symbol = symbol;
this.name = name;
}
}
This article describes some other ways to work with enum-like types in C#
If you really need the functionality of Java-style enums in C#, I see three reasonable ways to implement it:
Use a C# enum and a static class of helper methods. You lose type safety, but this is an otherwise very workable solution.
Use a C# enum and a set of extension methods. Probably the most idiomatic C# solution, but you still have to deal with the loss of type safety (your extension methods should be able to cope with out-of-range values, even if only by throwing an exception).
Use the type-safe enum pattern that was common in Java before the language gained the enum keyword in Java 5. If you have non-trivial logic for each enum value, this would be my preference.
Reading this, I learned it was possible to allow a method to accept parameters of multiple types by making it a generic method. In the example, the following code is used with a type constraint to ensure "U" is an IEnumerable<T>.
public T DoSomething<U, T>(U arg) where U : IEnumerable<T>
{
return arg.First();
}
I found some more code which allowed adding multiple type constraints, such as:
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: ParentClass, ChildClass
{
//do something
}
However, this code appears to enforce that arg must be both a type of ParentClass and ChildClass. What I want to do is say that arg could be a type of ParentClass or ChildClass in the following manner:
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: string OR Exception
{
//do something
}
Your help is appreciated as always!
That is not possible. You can, however, define overloads for specific types:
public void test(string a, string arg);
public void test(string a, Exception arg);
If those are part of a generic class, they will be preferred over the generic version of the method.
Botz answer is 100% correct, here's a short explanation:
When you are writing a method (generic or not) and declaring the types of the parameters that the method takes you are defining a contract:
If you give me an object that knows how to do the set of things that
Type T knows how to do I can deliver either 'a': a return value of the
type I declare, or 'b': some sort of behavior that uses that type.
If you try and give it more than one type at a time (by having an or) or try to get it to return a value that might be more than one type that contract gets fuzzy:
If you give me an object that knows how to jump rope or knows how to calculate pi
to the 15th digit I'll return either an object that can go fishing or maybe mix
concrete.
The problem is that when you get into the method you have no idea if they've given you an IJumpRope or a PiFactory. Furthermore, when you go ahead and use the method (assuming that you've gotten it to magically compile) you're not really sure if you have a Fisher or an AbstractConcreteMixer. Basically it makes the whole thing way more confusing.
The solution to your problem is one of two possiblities:
Define more than one method that defines each possible transformation, behavior, or whatever. That's Botz's answer. In the programming world this is referred to as Overloading the method.
Define a base class or interface that knows how to do all the things that you need for the method and have one method take just that type. This may involve wrapping up a string and Exception in a small class to define how you plan on mapping them to the implementation, but then everything is super clear and easy to read. I could come, four years from now and read your code and easily understand what's going on.
Which you choose depends on how complicated choice 1 and 2 would be and how extensible it needs to be.
So for your specific situation I'm going to imagine you're just pulling out a message or something from the exception:
public interface IHasMessage
{
string GetMessage();
}
public void test(string a, IHasMessage arg)
{
//Use message
}
Now all you need are methods that transform a string and an Exception to an IHasMessage. Very easy.
If ChildClass means it is derived from ParentClass, you may just write the following to accept both ParentClass and ChildClass;
public void test<T>(string a, T arg) where T: ParentClass
{
//do something
}
On the otherhand, if you want to use two different types with no inheritance relation between them, you should consider the types implementing the same interface;
public interface ICommonInterface
{
string SomeCommonProperty { get; set; }
}
public class AA : ICommonInterface
{
public string SomeCommonProperty
{
get;set;
}
}
public class BB : ICommonInterface
{
public string SomeCommonProperty
{
get;
set;
}
}
then you can write your generic function as;
public void Test<T>(string a, T arg) where T : ICommonInterface
{
//do something
}
As old as this question is I still get random upvotes on my explanation above. The explanation still stands perfectly fine as it is, but I'm going to answer a second time with a type that's served me well as a substitute for union types (the strongly-typed answer to the question that's not directly supported by C# as is).
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace Union {
[DebuggerDisplay("{currType}: {ToString()}")]
public struct Either<TP, TA> {
enum CurrType {
Neither = 0,
Primary,
Alternate,
}
private readonly CurrType currType;
private readonly TP primary;
private readonly TA alternate;
public bool IsNeither => currType == CurrType.Neither;
public bool IsPrimary => currType == CurrType.Primary;
public bool IsAlternate => currType == CurrType.Alternate;
public static implicit operator Either<TP, TA>(TP val) => new Either<TP, TA>(val);
public static implicit operator Either<TP, TA>(TA val) => new Either<TP, TA>(val);
public static implicit operator TP(Either<TP, TA> #this) => #this.Primary;
public static implicit operator TA(Either<TP, TA> #this) => #this.Alternate;
public override string ToString() {
string description = IsNeither ? "" :
$": {(IsPrimary ? typeof(TP).Name : typeof(TA).Name)}";
return $"{currType.ToString("")}{description}";
}
public Either(TP val) {
currType = CurrType.Primary;
primary = val;
alternate = default(TA);
}
public Either(TA val) {
currType = CurrType.Alternate;
alternate = val;
primary = default(TP);
}
public TP Primary {
get {
Validate(CurrType.Primary);
return primary;
}
}
public TA Alternate {
get {
Validate(CurrType.Alternate);
return alternate;
}
}
private void Validate(CurrType desiredType) {
if (desiredType != currType) {
throw new InvalidOperationException($"Attempting to get {desiredType} when {currType} is set");
}
}
}
}
The above class represents a type that can be either TP or TA. You can use it as such (the types refer back to my original answer):
// ...
public static Either<FishingBot, ConcreteMixer> DemoFunc(Either<JumpRope, PiCalculator> arg) {
if (arg.IsPrimary) {
return new FishingBot(arg.Primary);
}
return new ConcreteMixer(arg.Secondary);
}
// elsewhere:
var fishBotOrConcreteMixer = DemoFunc(new JumpRope());
var fishBotOrConcreteMixer = DemoFunc(new PiCalculator());
Important Notes:
You'll get runtime errors if you don't check IsPrimary first.
You can check any of IsNeither IsPrimary or IsAlternate.
You can access the value through Primary and Alternate
There are implicit converters between TP/TA and Either<TP, TA> to allow you to pass either the values or an Either anywhere where one is expected. If you do pass an Either where a TA or TP is expected, but the Either contains the wrong type of value you'll get a runtime error.
I typically use this where I want a method to return either a result or an error. It really cleans up that style code. I also very occasionally (rarely) use this as a replacement for method overloads. Realistically this is a very poor substitute for such an overload.
Say I have an enum something like:
enum OrderStatus
{
AwaitingAuthorization,
InProduction,
AwaitingDespatch
}
I've also created an extension method on my enum to tidy up the displayed values in the UI, so I have something like:
public static string ToDisplayString(this OrderStatus status)
{
switch (status)
{
case Status.AwaitingAuthorization:
return "Awaiting Authorization";
case Status.InProduction:
return "Item in Production";
... etc
}
}
Inspired by the excellent post here, I want to bind my enums to a SelectList with an extension method:
public static SelectList ToSelectList<TEnum>(this TEnum enumObj)
however, to use the DisplayString values in the UI drop down I'd need to add a constraint along the lines of
: where TEnum has extension ToDisplayString
Obviously none of this is going to work at all with the current approach, unless there's some clever trick I don't know about.
Does anyone have any ideas about how I might be able to implement something like this?
Is there a compelling reason to use an enum here?
When you start jumping through crazy hoops to use enums, it might be time to use a class.
public class OrderStatus
{
OrderStatus(string display) { this.display = display; }
string display;
public override string ToString(){ return display; }
public static readonly OrderStatus AwaitingAuthorization
= new OrderStatus("Awaiting Authorization");
public static readonly OrderStatus InProduction
= new OrderStatus("Item in Production");
public static readonly OrderStatus AwaitingDispatch
= new OrderStatus("Awaiting Dispatch");
}
You consume it the same as an enum:
public void AuthorizeAndSendToProduction(Order order, ProductionQueue queue)
{
if(order.Status != OrderStatus.AwaitingAuthorization)
{
Console.WriteLine("This order is not awaiting authorization!");
return;
}
order.Status = OrderStatus.InProduction;
queue.Enqueue(order);
}
The string representation is built-in, and all you need is ToString().
Of course, you can use the DisplayAttribute to annotate your Enums.
enum OrderStatus
{
[Display(Description="Long Desc", Name="Awaiting Authorization", ShortName="Wait Auth")]
AwaitingAuthorization,
[Display(Description="...", Name="...", ShortName="...")]
InProduction,
[Display(Description="...", Name="...", ShortName="...")]
AwaitingDespatch
}
You can also opt to create an extension method taking any enumeration value and returning its display name based on the attribute set to it to tidy up the displayed values in the UI, as follows:
public static class EnumExtensions
{
public static string ToName(this Enum enumValue)
{
var displayAttribute = enumValue.GetType()
.GetMember(enumValue.ToString())[0]
.GetCustomAttributes(false)
.Select(a => a as DisplayAttribute)
.FirstOrDefault();
return displayAttribute?.Name ?? enumValue.ToString();
}
}
With
public enum Test
{
[Display(Name="AAA")]
a,
b
}
Code:
Console.WriteLine(Test.a.ToName());
Console.WriteLine(Test.b.ToName());
Results
AAA
b
I want to bind my enums to a SelectList with an extension method:
For type safety, I wouldn't use an extension methods, but instead a static class that deals with the Enum type:
Pre C# 7.3 version. Since Enum is not a valid type constraint prior to 7.3 (and it would cause a compile-time exception), you'll end up by considering that enums are value types and they implement some interfaces, in order to restrict the type parameter as close to Enum as possible.
public static class Enums<TEnum> where TEnum : struct, IComparable, IFormattable, IConvertible
{
static Enums()
{
if (!typeof(TEnum).IsEnum)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
}
}
C# 7.3+ version, with compile time checking... yay!
public static class Enums<TEnum> where TEnum : Enum
{
}
GetValues Method for the class:
public static IEnumerable<TEnum> GetValues(bool includeFirst)
{
var result = ((TEnum[])Enum.GetValues(typeof(TEnum))).ToList();
if (!includeZero)
result = result.Where(r => r != default).ToList();
return result;
}
If you follow Enum Guidelines and include the Default (zero) value, we can ignore it (sometimes we want to display the value like "None Selected" and sometimes we don't "Invalid Selection").
Then we can add another method:
public static IEnumerable<string> GetNames(bool includeFirst)
{
var result = GetValue(includeFirst)
.Select(v => v.ToName())
.ToList();
return result;
}
Instead of using "ToDisplayString", simply override ToString() of your enum. So if an enum overrides it it will take it, otherwise it will take the default ToString behavior (in ToSelectList).
If you just need to use relatively tiny enumerate classes that have no more than an explicit casting operator, ToString and do not take other usability for the special ones about enum on System and its derived namespaces, then the following example could be a solution:
namespace MyNamespace {
public abstract class EnumerateClass<Type, InheritingClass> : IEquatable<InheritingClass>
where Type : IEquatable<Type>
where InheritingClass : EnumerateClass<Type, InheritingClass> {
internal readonly Type Identifier;
protected EnumerateClass (Type identifier) {
this.Identifier = identifier;
}
public bool Equals(InheritingClass obj)
=> this.Identifier.Equals(obj.Identifier);
public static explicit operator Type(EnumerateClass<Type, InheritingClass> obj)
=> obj.Identifier;
}
public sealed class MyNumber : EnumerateClass<int, MyNumber> {
private MyNumber(int identifier) : base(identifier) { }
public static readonly MyNumber None = new Number(0);
public static readonly MyNumber One = new Number(1);
public static readonly MyNumber Two = new Number(2);
...
public override string ToString() {
switch (this.Identifier) {
case 0: return "None";
case 1: return "One";
case 2: return "Two";
...
}
}
}
}
You could do this:
public static string ToOrderStatusDisplayString(this Enum status)
{
switch ((OrderStatus)status)
{
...
}
}
Then restrict TEnum to Enum: where TEnum : System.Enum
Of course, that way you get a bunch of methods on the Enum itself and lose type safety.
How would you do specialization in C#?
I'll pose a problem. You have a template type, you have no idea what it is. But you do know if it's derived from XYZ you want to call .alternativeFunc(). A great way is to call a specialized function or class and have normalCall return .normalFunc() while have the other specialization on any derived type of XYZ to call .alternativeFunc(). How would this be done in C#?
In C#, the closest to specialization is to use a more-specific overload; however, this is brittle, and doesn't cover every possible usage. For example:
void Foo<T>(T value) {Console.WriteLine("General method");}
void Foo(Bar value) {Console.WriteLine("Specialized method");}
Here, if the compiler knows the types at compile, it will pick the most specific:
Bar bar = new Bar();
Foo(bar); // uses the specialized method
However....
void Test<TSomething>(TSomething value) {
Foo(value);
}
will use Foo<T> even for TSomething=Bar, as this is burned in at compile-time.
One other approach is to use type-testing within a generic method - however, this is usually a poor idea, and isn't recommended.
Basically, C# just doesn't want you to work with specializations, except for polymorphism:
class SomeBase { public virtual void Foo() {...}}
class Bar : SomeBase { public override void Foo() {...}}
Here Bar.Foo will always resolve to the correct override.
Assuming you're talking about template specialization as it can be done with C++ templates - a feature like this isn't really available in C#. This is because C# generics aren't processed during the compilation and are more a feature of the runtime.
However, you can achieve similar effect using C# 3.0 extension methods. Here is an example that shows how to add extension method only for MyClass<int> type, which is just like template specialization. Note however, that you can't use this to hide default implementation of the method, because C# compiler always prefers standard methods to extension methods:
class MyClass<T> {
public int Foo { get { return 10; } }
}
static class MyClassSpecialization {
public static int Bar(this MyClass<int> cls) {
return cls.Foo + 20;
}
}
Now you can write this:
var cls = new MyClass<int>();
cls.Bar();
If you want to have a default case for the method that would be used when no specialization is provided, than I believe writing one generic Bar extension method should do the trick:
public static int Bar<T>(this MyClass<T> cls) {
return cls.Foo + 42;
}
I was searching for a pattern to simulate template specialization, too. There are some approaches which may work in some circumstances. However what about the case
static void Add<T>(T value1, T value2)
{
//add the 2 numeric values
}
It would be possible to choose the action using statements e.g. if (typeof(T) == typeof(int)). But there is a better way to simulate real template specialization with the overhead of a single virtual function call:
public interface IMath<T>
{
T Add(T value1, T value2);
}
public class Math<T> : IMath<T>
{
public static readonly IMath<T> P = Math.P as IMath<T> ?? new Math<T>();
//default implementation
T IMath<T>.Add(T value1, T value2)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
class Math : IMath<int>, IMath<double>
{
public static Math P = new Math();
//specialized for int
int IMath<int>.Add(int value1, int value2)
{
return value1 + value2;
}
//specialized for double
double IMath<double>.Add(double value1, double value2)
{
return value1 + value2;
}
}
Now we can write, without having to know the type in advance:
static T Add<T>(T value1, T value2)
{
return Math<T>.P.Add(value1, value2);
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var result1 = Add(1, 2);
var result2 = Add(1.5, 2.5);
return;
}
If the specialization should not only be called for the implemented types, but also derived types, one could use an In parameter for the interface. However, in this case the return types of the methods cannot be of the generic type T any more.
By adding an intermediate class and a dictionary, specialization is possible.
To specialize on T, we create an generic interface, having a method called (e.g.) Apply. For the specific classes that interface is implemented, defining the method Apply specific for that class. This intermediate class is called the traits class.
That traits class can be specified as a parameter in the call of the generic method, which then (of course) always takes the right implementation.
Instead of specifying it manually, the traits class can also be stored in a global IDictionary<System.Type, object>. It can then be looked up and voila, you have real specialization there.
If convenient you can expose it in an extension method.
class MyClass<T>
{
public string Foo() { return "MyClass"; }
}
interface BaseTraits<T>
{
string Apply(T cls);
}
class IntTraits : BaseTraits<MyClass<int>>
{
public string Apply(MyClass<int> cls)
{
return cls.Foo() + " i";
}
}
class DoubleTraits : BaseTraits<MyClass<double>>
{
public string Apply(MyClass<double> cls)
{
return cls.Foo() + " d";
}
}
// Somewhere in a (static) class:
public static IDictionary<Type, object> register;
register = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
register[typeof(MyClass<int>)] = new IntTraits();
register[typeof(MyClass<double>)] = new DoubleTraits();
public static string Bar<T>(this T obj)
{
BaseTraits<T> traits = register[typeof(T)] as BaseTraits<T>;
return traits.Apply(obj);
}
var cls1 = new MyClass<int>();
var cls2 = new MyClass<double>();
string id = cls1.Bar();
string dd = cls2.Bar();
See this link to my recent blog and the follow ups for an extensive description and samples.
I think there is a way to achieve it with .NET 4+ using dynamic resolution:
static class Converter<T>
{
public static string Convert(T data)
{
return Convert((dynamic)data);
}
private static string Convert(Int16 data) => $"Int16 {data}";
private static string Convert(UInt16 data) => $"UInt16 {data}";
private static string Convert(Int32 data) => $"Int32 {data}";
private static string Convert(UInt32 data) => $"UInt32 {data}";
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(Converter<Int16>.Convert(-1));
Console.WriteLine(Converter<UInt16>.Convert(1));
Console.WriteLine(Converter<Int32>.Convert(-1));
Console.WriteLine(Converter<UInt32>.Convert(1));
}
}
Output:
Int16 -1
UInt16 1
Int32 -1
UInt32 1
Which shows that a different implementation is called for different types.
Some of the proposed answers are using runtime type info: inherently slower than compile-time bound method calls.
Compiler does not enforce specialization as well as it does in C++.
I would recommend looking at PostSharp for a way to inject code after the usual compiler is done to achieve an effect similar to C++.
A simpler, shorter and more readable version of what #LionAM proposed (about half of the code size), shown for lerp since this was my actual use case:
public interface ILerp<T> {
T Lerp( T a, T b, float t );
}
public class Lerp : ILerp<float>, ILerp<double> {
private static readonly Lerp instance = new();
public static T Lerp<T>( T a, T b, float t )
=> ( instance as ILerp<T> ?? throw new NotSupportedException() ).Lerp( a, b, t );
float ILerp<float>.Lerp( float a, float b, float t ) => Mathf.Lerp( a, b, t );
double ILerp<double>.Lerp( double a, double b, float t ) => Mathd.Lerp( a, b, t );
}
You can then just e.g.
Lerp.Lerp(a, b, t);
in any generic context, or provide the method as a grouped Lerp.lerp method reference matching T(T,T,float) signature.
If ClassCastException is good enough for you, you can of course just use
=> ( (ILerp<T>) instance ).Lerp( a, b, t );
to make the code even shorter/simpler.
If you just want to test if a type is derrived from XYZ, then you can use:
theunknownobject.GetType().IsAssignableFrom(typeof(XYZ));
If so, you can cast "theunknownobject" to XYZ and invoke alternativeFunc() like this:
XYZ xyzObject = (XYZ)theunknownobject;
xyzObject.alternativeFunc();
Hope this helps.