I'm not sure exactly how to call this situation, but here it is:
I have 2 methods with different types, but from the "outside" they have the same signature. And when calling the method, I would like to invoke a specific method instead of the other - here is what I have:
public class SomeClass
{
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, T myObj)
{
// some code here
}
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, string myObj)
{
// some code here
}
}
For the compiler, the 2 methods above are different and have different signatures. But when calling:
var myClass = new SomeClass();
myClass.MyMethod("name", "something");
When calling MyMethod in the example, what's being called is MyMethod<T>(string name, T myObj), but what I would actually want to call is the second method. Is there a way to make it call a specific signature?
EDIT:
I found the if I give in one of the methods a different name to the second variable and then calling the method with the variable name as part of the call it does work, as in the following example:
public class SomeClass
{
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, T myObj)
{
// some code here
}
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, string myNewObj)
{
// some code here
}
}
var myClass = new SomeClass();
myClass.MyMethod<AnyOfMyTypes>("name", myNewObj: "something");
While this works, following Jon's response below, does it seem like something that is correct to do? As far as for the method name, I would like to keep it the same, and the other option is to change the signature by adding some dummy boolean variable.
The compiler certainly can't call the second method with that calling code, as it wouldn't know what to infer for T. If you specify a type argument though, it does call the second method:
myClass.MyMethod<string>("name", "something");
While that will work, I would strongly advise you to change the design if you possibly can. Rename one of the methods. I can reasonably call myself a C# expert, but I couldn't predict from inspection whether or not that would work. The overload resolution and type inference details in C# are really complicated, and it's unreasonable to expect every C# developer to know them inside out.
If you can give the methods different names, the code code is likely to be a lot simpler to read.
Following Jon's answer I'd suggest following solution to your problem:
private async Task<Response<T>> MethodForString<T>(string str)
{
// some code...
}
public async Task<Response<T>> Method<T>(T obj)
{
if (typeof(T) == typeof(string))
return MethodForString<T>(obj as string);
// some code...
}
Above is just a sample, but idea is simple: just check type of T and call appropriate method :)
This way, all your method call will remain exactly the same :)
The reason the first method is being called is because you have a generic type of T.
If you pass a string into this then it will hit the first method. It is better design to only have one method. If you want to be able to pass in any type then keep the first method, if you want just a string then keep just the second method. You should only have two methods if both have distinct clear purposes.
This
public class SomeClass
{
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, T myObj)
{
// some code here
}
}
Or
public class SomeClass
{
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, string myObj)
{
// some code here
}
}
Or
public class SomeClass
{
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, string myObj)
{
// some code here
}
public async Task<Response<T>> MyMethod<T>(string name, int age, string address)
{
// some code here
}
}
Dont put a dummy variable into any of the methods, this will lead to problems debugging and be misleading for other developers.
Related
I'm trying to restrict the return type of a generic delegate without specifying the parameter signature, and I don't know how to do this, or if it is even possible.
How can I do this or is it impossible?
My research has come up dry. Some pseudo-C# code would probably help steer you toward what I'm trying to do:
public class SomeClass< T, U > where T : Delegate // returning U
{
private someDelegate;
public SomeClass( T someDelegate )
{
this.someDelegate = someDelegate;
}
public U Run()
{
return someDelegate.DynamicInvoke();
}
}
... Elsewhere
public delegate string aDelegate();
public static string SayHi()
{
return "Hello!";
}
aDelegate greeter = SayHi;
var something = new SomeClass< aDelegate, string>( greeter );
Console.WriteLine( something.Run() ); // Should write "Hello" to the console.
I know this is a rather contrived pseudo example. I aim for a more involved usage, of course. I'm trying to write a console menu class that would associate a list of given menu options with actions that would fire depending on what option the user chooses. Right now, it just returns the string the user chose from the menu. What I'd like be able to do is return what--if anything--the associated method returns. This could perhaps be returned with the user chosen option string in a tuple... But, I figured this mini-example just cut straight to the technical hurdle I'm experiencing.
Thanks!
.NET already defines a generic delegate that returns the generic argument as it's result, Func<T>. You don't even need to define it.
public class SomeClass<U>
{
private Func<U>;
public SomeClass(Func<U> someDelegate)
{
this.someDelegate = someDelegate;
}
public U Run()
{
return someDelegate();
}
}
There's no real useful reason to allow a user of the type to provide any arbitrary delegate of the same signature. Really I'd advise you to avoid using any delegates in your code other than Func and Action (with various different numbers of generic arguments) whenever possible, as it's just creating a hassle to do so. I would consider it a reasonable restriction on any caller that has a delegate of a different type but the same signature to simply convert it to a Func<T> anyway, it's not like it's even a difficult conversion for them.
If you don't want to use Func<T> (as Servy suggests), e.g. if you have a custom delegate of your own that you want to be passed with type-safety, then perhaps you can make your custom delegate generic with respect to its return type. Then you can do it this way:
public delegate T MyDelegate<T>();
public class Foo<T>
{
private readonly MyDelegate<T> _delegate;
public Foo(MyDelegate<T> handler)
{
_delegate = handler;
}
public T Bar()
{
return _delegate();
}
}
I have a function SerializeUser in the Class User.
This function does not have a Parameter.
I want to have different functionality in these two types of function calls:
User.SerializeUser(); //Do sth...
and
User u = new User();
u.SerializeUser(); //Do sth else...
Is it possible to check if it is a static function call or a non static function call?
No, a function cannot be both static and non-static.
What you can do is create two methods, one static, and one non-static, although they will need to have different signatures. If you want them both to accept no arguments, they will have to have a different name, which is likely for the best anyway; given that one is acting on an instance and another isn't, there is almost certainly something at least somewhat different about what the methods are doing that you should reflect in their name.
I think what you're confusing here is that if you define one method, SerializeUser() on your User object, you will not be able to call User.SerializeUser() unless it is static. If it is static, then you won't be able to do new User().SerializeUser() - you can only do both with two methods, same name or not, and you can only have the same name if you differentiate their signatures so the compiler can resolve which one to use.
The only way this makes sense as something you'd want to do is if the instance method passes the instance as an argument to the static method, and the static method accepts an instance as a parameter, i.e.:
namespace MyNamespace
{
public class MyClass
{
public static void Method(MyClass c = null)
{
if (c == null)
{
//Do Stuff From Static
}
else
{
//Do Different Stuff With Instance
}
}
public void Method()
{
Method(this);
}
}
}
You can also use something else to differentiate them, such as a boolean with a default value, or without a default value. Ex. if the static method has a bool flag = false parameter, then the instance method could call it with flag = true and then you can make the behavior differentiate. This is slightly nasty code, though, as it hides the method behind tricky overload resolution.
To answer your question directly you can check whether the current method is static with MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().IsStatic, but I don't think that will actually be of use to you in this situation.
Looking at your code, though, I imagine what you want is this:
namespace MyNamespace
{
public class User
{
public static string SerializeUser(User u = null)
{
if (u != null)
return u.SerializeUser();
else
return "something"; //default(User).SerializeUser();?
}
}
public static class UserExtensions
{
public static string SerializeUser(this User u)
{
//return however you serialize your user.
}
}
}
I write this piece of code in one of my C# project:
public static class GetAppendReceiver
{
public static AppendReceiver<DataType> Get<DataType>(AppendReceiver<DataType>.DataProcessor processor0, int delayIn = 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
public static AppendReceiver<string> Get(AppendReceiver<string>.DataProcessor processor0, int delayIn = 0)
{
return new StringAppendReceiver(processor0, delayIn);
}
}
public abstract class AppendReceiver<DataType>
{
public delegate void DataProcessor(DataType data);
...
}
AppendReceiver<DataType> is an Abstract class, DataProcessor is a delegate type.
When calling GetAppendReceiver.Get with a string DataProcessor I expect the overloaded function to be called, but I get the InvalidOperationException.
Here is my call:
class ClassA<DataType>
{
public void RegisterAppendReceiver(AppendReceiver<DataType>.DataProcessor receiver)
{
appendReceivers.Add(GetAppendReceiver.Get(receiver, Delay));
}
}
Example of RegisterAppendReceiver call:
myObject.RegisterAppendReceiver(myMethod);
Where myMethod is defined like this:
public void writeMessage(string strMessageIn)
My question is why I get the wrong overload called, and how can I force the language to call the overload I want ?
Thanks for your help !
Eric Lippert answers this question concisely in his article Generics are not Templates
I don't want to copy the entire article. So the relevant point is this:
We do the overload resolution once and bake in the result.
So the C# compiler decides, at the time it compiles RegisterAppendReceiver, which overload of "GetAppendReceiver.Get" it is going to call. Since, at that point, the only thing it knows about DataType is that DataType can be anything at all, it compiles in the call to the overload that takes an AppendReceiver.DataProcessor, not an AppendReceiver.DataProcessor.
By comparison, the C++ compiler does not behave this way. Each and every time a generic call is made, the compiler does the substitution over again. This is one reason C++ compilers are much slower than C# compilers.
My guess until now was that a dynamic type just "switches off" type checking during compilation and does something similar to a type cast when a message is invoked on a dynamic instance. Obviously something else is going on.
The attached NUnit test case shows my problem: Using a dynamic type I can use a method only available in the concrete subclass, but I cannot do the same using a cast (results in InvalidCastException). I'd rather do the casting since this gives me full code completion in VS.
Can anyone explain what's happening and/or give me a hint how I could get code completion in my case without having to reimplement the WorkWithAndCreate-method in every concrete subclass?
cheers, Johannes
using System;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace SlidesCode.TestDataBuilder
{
[TestFixture]
public class MyTest
{
[Test]
public void DynamicWorks()
{
string aString = CreateDynamic(obj => obj.OnlyInConcreteClass());
Assert.AreEqual("a string", aString);
}
private static string CreateDynamic(Action<dynamic> action)
{
return new MyConcreteClass().WorkWithAndCreate(action);
}
[Test]
public void CastingDoesNotWorkButThrowsInvalidCastException()
{
string aString = CreateWithCast(obj => obj.OnlyInConcreteClass());
Assert.AreEqual("a string", aString);
}
private static string CreateWithCast(Action<MyConcreteClass> action)
{
return new MyConcreteClass().WorkWithAndCreate((Action<MyGenericClass<string>>) action);
}
}
internal abstract class MyGenericClass<T>
{
public abstract T Create();
public T WorkWithAndCreate(Action<MyGenericClass<T>> action)
{
action(this);
return this.Create();
}
}
internal class MyConcreteClass : MyGenericClass<string>
{
public override string Create()
{
return "a string";
}
public void OnlyInConcreteClass()
{
}
}
}
Here's the formatted real world example from my comment:
Customer customer = ACustomer(cust =>
{
cust.With(new Id(54321));
cust.With(AnAddress(addr => addr.WithZipCode(22222)));
});
private static Address AnAddress(Action<AddressBuilder> buildingAction)
{
return new AddressBuilder().BuildFrom(buildingAction);
}
private static Customer ACustomer(Action<CustomerBuilder> buildingAction)
{
return new CustomerBuilder().BuildFrom(buildingAction);
}
Some details are missing from it but I hope it makes the purpose clear.
The reason dynamic works is that dynamic does not depend on compile time knowledge of the object types. MyGenericClass<string> does not have the method OnlyInConcreteClass(), but the instance you are passing of course does have the method and dynamic finds this.
By the way, you can make WorkWithAndCreate work like this:
public T WorkWithAndCreate<T1>(Action<T1> action)
where T1 : MyGenericClass<T>
{
action((T1)this);
return this.Create();
}
Then, the call will work too:
private static string CreateWithCast(Action<MyConcreteClass> action)
{
return new MyConcreteClass().WorkWithAndCreate(action);
}
You now don't have to cast it anymore.
And concerning your builder, would the following work?
private static TResult AnInstance<TBuilder, TResult>(Action<TBuilder> buildingAction)
where TBuilder : Builder<TResult>, new()
{
return new TBuilder().BuildFrom(buildingAction);
}
This is an example of how to use dynamic:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736.aspx
You said:
My guess until now was that a dynamic type just "switches off" type checking during compilation and does something similar to a type cast when a message is invoked on a dynamic instance
Actually, it uses reflections to look up the methods, properties, and fields you invoke by name, at runtime. No casting is done, unless you actually cast the object back to its underlying type.
As for your actual problem, can you give a more concrete example? There may be a better design, but you haven't told us what you're trying to do - just what you're currently doing.
Hazarding a guess, you may want to use a base interface, and make all your functions accept that base interface. Then put the methods you want to call on that interface, and implement them in your concrete types. Usually dynamic is used as a work around when you don't have a base type, or can't modify the base type to add virtual or abstract methods.
If you really want to get this working, as-is, you must write it with a generic type parameter, not a dynamic type parameter. See Pieter's solution for how to do this properly.
I need to design a method that can potentially take as a parameter an object, if it doesn't then the method has to create a new object by itself.
Is this a good way to do it?
public void Method1(int companyId, int userId, int clientId)
{
Method1(null, companyId, userId, clientId);
}
public void Method1(SpecialObject o, int companyId)
{
if(o == null)
o = new SpecialObject(userId, clientId);
}
Expanding on Daniel's answer, I've often used this pattern:
public void Method1(int companyId, int userId, int clientId)
{
Method1(new SpecialObject(userId, clientId), companyId);
}
public void Method1(SpecialObject o, int companyId)
{
// if needed
if (o == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("o")
}
...
}
I wouldn't do that. It sounds like that is outside of the scope/responsibility of Method1. Why cant you construct SpecialObject before calling Method1?
Your code snippet is not clear. In your first override, you call a Method1 override that you haven't shown. In your second override, you pass userId and clientId to SpecialObject's constructor, but do not show where userId and clientId are defined.
Regardless, some general approaches include
ordering the parameters such that the ones that appear in more overrides are positioned first,
expecting reference variables to be non-null (check and possibly throw ArgumentNullException), and
for reference variables that can be null, create an override that doesn't include that variable.
This is not a good design. If Method1 is a create operation, it should return the object being created. If it is a regular update operation, it should require that the object was created in advance.
Most likely, the body of Method1 should really be a method of SpecialObject (which would then probably only receive companyId).
Looks like a perfectly good design pattern to me.
(I don't know if your initialisation of "o" is valid though, but that's beside the point)
I've used something similar when writing unit tests.
In the normal (non-test) case the class under test constructs it's own member objects. however, when it's under test I can pass in a mock or a stub to use, if it's appropriate.
For example, here's some C++(I know the question isn't about C++, but the technique is transferable) code to illustrate the technique I've used.
class Foo {
public:
Foo() : m_bar(new Bar()) {}//normal (non-test constructor)
Foo(Bar* bar) : m_bar(bar) {} //constructor used when unit testing
private:
Bar * m_bar;
};
The difference here, is I use this with constructors, not general methods