Develop Reference

pass a bool expression as a method parameter

i am a bit confused trying to implement a more elegant generic solution using lambda/LINQ Expression or Func<bool> to simply replace a bool return type.
say the expression is:
public bool someBoolRetMethod(someType parA, someOtherType parB) {
if(parA==null)
return new ExpM("relevant msg").Rtrn;
}
so now if parA is null, ExpM() is a class that deals with errors
what i wanted to do is pass the condition as a parameter :
public class ExpBoolCond:ExpM {
public bool Rtrn{get;set;}
public ExpBoolCond(theBool, themsg) {
variable to hold theBool;
if(theBool) new specialMbxWindow(themsg)
then set Rtrn..
}
}
so in that way i could use:
var condNullParA = new ExpBoolCond(parA==null, "passed ParA is Null,\r\nAborting method <sub>(methodName and line# is handled inside ExpM base class)</sub> !")
if(condNullParA.Rtrn) ....
what is the correct way to implement it ?
Update :
public class ExcBCondM:ExcpM
{
public bool Rtrn { get { return this._Rtrn(); } }
Func<bool> _Rtrn { get; set; }
public ExcBCondM(Func<bool> cond, string bsMsg)
: base(bsMsg,false)
{
this._Rtrn = cond;
//if (this._Rtrn) this.show();
}
public bool activateNon() { this.show(); return false; }
}
usage:
public bool someBoolRetMethod(some_passed_Type parA)
{
var someCondExpM = new ExpBoolCond(() => parA==null, "relevant Message");
if(someCondExpM.Rtrn)
return someCondExpM.activateNon(); //if() now Calls Func<bool> _Rtrn when called rather where stated.
return true;//if ok...
}

If you want to create Func<bool> as a lambda expression, the syntax is as follows:
var condNullParA = new ExpBoolCond(() => parA==null, "passed ParA is Null,\r\nAborting method <sub>(methodName and line# is handled inside ExpM base class)</sub> !")
// ^^^^^
The () => part tells C# compiler that the expression that follows should become a body of a lambda that takes no parameters, and returns whatever is the type of the expression to the right of the => sign, i.e. a bool.

Get reference to parameter inside a Lambda passed as a Func

Given the following set of classes:
public class MyClass
{
public int MyInt { get; set; }
}
public class ObjectProcessor
{
public int ProcessObject(MyClass myClass)
{
return myClass.MyInt ++;
}
}
public class Runner
{
public void Run()
{
var classToPass = new MyClass();
FuncExecutor.ExecuteAction<MyClass>(x => x.ProcessObject(classToPass));
}
}
public static class FuncExecutor
{
public static void ExecuteAction<T>(Expression<Func<ObjectProcessor, int>> expression)
{
// var func = expression.Compile(); ... does having an Expression help?
// How can I get a reference to 'classToPass' at this point?
// The 'classToPass' Type is known to be 'T', in this case 'MyClass'.
}
}
From within the ExecuteAction method, how can I get a reference to the classToPass instance that was passed in to ProcessObject?
EDIT: The comments have highlighted the complexity of trying to parse Expression Trees which could vary widely in their composition.
However, in this particular case there are two facts which cut down this variation considerably:
ProcessObject will only ever take a single parameter.
The parameter type is known in advance.
Code altered to express this.

To answer very specifically:
public class Runner
{
public void Run()
{
var classToPass = new MyClass();
classToPass.MyInt = 42;
FuncExecutor.ExecuteAction(x => x.ProcessObject(classToPass));
}
}
public class FuncExecutor
{
public static void ExecuteAction(Expression<Func<ObjectProcessor, int>> expression)
{
var lambdaExpression = (LambdaExpression)expression;
var methodCallExpression = (MethodCallExpression)lambdaExpression.Body;
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)methodCallExpression.Arguments[0];
var constantExpression = (ConstantExpression)memberExpression.Expression;
var fieldInfo = (FieldInfo)memberExpression.Member;
var myClassReference = (MyClass) fieldInfo.GetValue(constantExpression.Value);
Console.WriteLine(myClassReference.MyInt); // prints "42"
}
}
Please note that when you pass the lambda to the ExecuteAction method, you capture a local variable reference (classToPass). The compiler will generate some code to handle that properly. More precisely, it will generate a type with a single member (a field) of type MyClass to hold the reference and use it from this point. That's why you'll get a MemberExpression in the argument expression list.
Since you can't directly manipulate this generated type, you can't just use the member expression Value property. But you can dynamically invoke the member accessor using the MemberInfo and the target reference (an instance of the compiler generated type).
I would not rely on this code.
You can read more about lambda related compiler generated code here, for example: http://thewalkingdev.blogspot.fr/2012/04/c-lambda-expressions-and-closures.html

The easiest way is to pass the instance as parameter and let ExecuteAction take care of calling the process method using that instance. To do this it is necessary to give your code a little bit of structure using a generic object processor interface:
public interface IObjectProcessor<T> {
public int ProcessObject(T instance);
}
public class MyClassProcessor : IObjectProcessor<MyClass> {
public int ProcessObject(MyClass myClass) {
return myClass.MyInt ++;
}
}
public class Runner {
public void Run() {
var classToPass = new MyClass();
var processor = new MyClassProcessor();
FuncExecutor.ExecuteAction<MyClass>(processor, classToPass);
}
}
public class FuncExecutor {
public static void ExecuteAction<T>(IObjectProcessor<T> processor, T obj) {
int result = processor.ProcessObject(obj);
}
}
This design could be a little annoying especially if your processor are "stateless" and if you really need a Func as parameter. In this case you can drop the interface and use static processors:
public class MyClassProcessor
public static int ProcessObject(MyClass myClass) {
return myClass.MyInt ++;
}
}
public class Runner {
public void Run() {
var classToPass = new MyClass();
FuncExecutor.ExecuteAction<MyClass>(MyClassProcessor.ProcessObject, classToPass);
}
}
public class FuncExecutor {
public static void ExecuteAction<T>(Func<T, int> process, T obj) {
int result = process(obj);
}
}

Delegates to generic operations where the generic type is unknown. How to create something like that?

Suppose I have the following code.
static class Store<T> {
public static T A;
public static T B;
public static T C;
}
public static class Store {
public static Value A = new Value(<T>(v) => Store<T>.A = v); //just an example of what I want
public static Value B = new Value(<T>(v) => Store<T>.B = v); //just an example of what I want
public static Value C = new Value(SetC<T>); //just an example of what I want
public static void SetA<T>(T value) { Store<T>.A = value; }
public static void SetB<T>(T value) { Store<T>.B = value; }
public static void SetC<T>(T value) { Store<T>.C = value; }
}
public class Value {
Action<T><T> _valueChanger; //just an example of what I want
public Value(Action<T><T> valueChanger) { //just an example of what I want
_valueChanger = valueChanger;
}
public void SetValue<T> (T value) {
_valueChanger<T>(value); //just an example of what I want
}
}
I want to write Store.A.SetValue(42) so that the value is saved to Store<int>.A. What can I write instead of the lines marked by "just an example of what I want" to make that happen? (I want to explore a solution that doesn't involve dictionaries or something similar)
Rephrasing the question:
I want to modify class Value (define some fields, write a constructor and write the method Value.SetValue(T value) ), then construct three different variables of type Value (A, B, C) in such a way that when I call Store.A.SetValue(42) the value Store<int>.A is changed to 42.
Another variation of the classes:
static class Holder<T> {
T Value { get; set; }
}
static class Store2<T> {
public static Holder<T> A = new Holder<T>();
public static Holder<T> B = new Holder<T>();
public static Holder<T> C = new Holder<T>();
}
public static class Store2 {
public static Value A = new Value2(Store2<>.A); //just an example of what I want
public static Value B = new Value2(Store2<>.B); //passing non-specific generic expression
public static Value C = new Value3({TFree}() => Store2<TFree>.C); //just an example of what I want
}
public class Value2 { //Non-generic class!
Holder{TFree}<TFree> _holder; //just an example of what I want
public Value(Holder{TFree}<TFree> holder) { //just an example of what I want
_holder = holder;
}
public void SetValue<T> (T value) {
_holder{T}.Value = value; //just an example of what I want
}
}
public class Value3 { //Non-generic class! (Another variation)
Func{TFree}<Holder<TFree>> _holderFactory; //just an example of what I want
public Value(Func{TFree}<Holder<TFree>> holderFactory) { //just an example of what I want
_holderFactory = holderFactory;
}
public void SetValue<T> (T value) {
Holder<T> holder = _holderFactory{T}(); //just an example of what I want
holder.Value = value;
}
}
Solution:
An easy reflection-free and collection-free solution was found using the answers to another question ( Emulating delegates with free generic type parameters in C# and Emulating delegates with free generic type parameters in C#). The solution is Delegates to generic operations where the generic type is unknown. How to create something like that?.

Use an array to store the values and access them through a property using an index
public static class Store<T>
{
public static readonly T[] Values = new T[3];
public static T A { get { return Values[0]; } set { Values[0] = value; } }
public static T B { get { return Values[1]; } set { Values[1] = value; } }
public static T C { get { return Values[2]; } set { Values[2] = value; } }
}
public static class Store
{
public static readonly Value A = new Value(0);
public static readonly Value B = new Value(1);
public static readonly Value C = new Value(2);
}
public class Value
{
private int _index;
public Value(int index)
{
_index = index;
}
public void SetValue<T>(T value)
{
Store<T>.Values[_index] = value;
}
public T GetValue<T>()
{
return Store<T>.Values[_index];
}
}
Since the constructor of Value is not aware of any generic type parameter, you cannot have any reference to a specific Store<T>.
UPDATE
Be aware of the fact that a copy of Store<T> will be created for every distinct type argument that you supplied for T. See this example
Store.A.SetValue(42);
Store.A.SetValue("Douglas Adams");
Store.A.SetValue(new DirectoryInfo(#"C:\"));
Store.A.SetValue(new List<int>());
var x1 = Store.A.GetValue<int>(); // --> 42
var x2 = Store.A.GetValue<string>(); // --> "Douglas Adams"
var x3 = Store.A.GetValue<DirectoryInfo>(); // --> DirectoryInfo{ C:\ }
var x4 = Store.A.GetValue<List<int>>(); // --> List<int>{ Count = 0 }
By using the debugger, you will see that four different values are stored in A at the same time! Of cause these are four differents A's that exist in four diffferent Store<T>.

The problem turned out to be solvable. Mike-z gave me a nearly right solution for the delegate-to-generic-method problem ( Emulating delegates with free generic type parameters in C#) which I modified to be a full solution: ( Emulating delegates with free generic type parameters in C#).
The solution this question becomes easy too. Interfaces can contain generic methods and we can use the interface-valued variables to store links to generic methods without specifying concrete type arguments. The following code utilizes the Store<T> class without modifications and uses the ISetter interface and ASetter/BSetter/CSetter "closures" to hold references to different generic members. The Value class stores the references in a ISetter-typed variable and uses the generic member which the _setter links to once the type argument T becomes available.
public interface ISetter {
void SetValue<T>(T value);
}
public static class Store {
public static Value A = new Value(new ASetter());
public static Value B = new Value(new BSetter());
public static Value C = new Value(new CSetter());
class ASetter : ISetter {
public void SetValue<T>(T value) { Store<T>.A = value; }
}
class BSetter : ISetter {
public void SetValue<T>(T value) { Store<T>.B = value; }
}
class CSetter : ISetter {
public void SetValue<T>(T value) { Store<T>.C = value; }
}
}
public class Value {
ISetter _setter;
public Value(ISetter setter) {
_setter = setter;
}
public void SetValue<T> (T value) {
_setter.SetValue<T>(value);
}
}

Closures and reference setting

I think I have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Why does the test fail?
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static Action To<T>(this T newValue, T oldValue) where T : class
{
return () => oldValue = newValue;
}
}
public static class Assign
{
public static T TheValue<T>(T theValue)
{
return theValue;
}
}
public class Tests
{
public void Test()
{
var a = new TestType { Name = "a" };
var b = "b";
Assign.TheValue(b).To(a.Name)();
Assert.That(a.Name == "b"); //fails (a.Name == "a")
}
}
public class TestType { public string Name {get;set;} }

It fails because the arguments to To are passed by value.
Just because oldValue is set to "b" doesn't mean that a.Name will be changed at all. In the call To(a.Name), the expression a.Name is evaluated to a string reference, and that reference is passed to the method by value.
That's basic parameter passing in C#. Just using a closure doesn't change that.
What you can do is change the To method like this:
public static Action To<T>(this T newValue, Action<T> setter) where T : class
{
return () => setter(newValue);
}
then change the call to:
Assign.TheValue(b).To(x => a.Name = x)();

Put another way,
var a = new TestType { Name = "a" };
Assign.TheValue(b).To(a.Name)();
is equivalent to
Assign.TheValue(b).To("a")();
just like
int x = 5;
Convert.ToDecimal(x);
is equivalent to
Convert.ToDecimal(5);

Can a method be overriden with a lambda function

Is there any way to override a class method with a lambda function?
For example with a class definition of
class MyClass {
public virtual void MyMethod(int x) {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
Is there anyway to do:
MyClass myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.MyMethod = (x) => { Console.WriteLine(x); };

Chris is right that methods cannot be used like variables. However, you could do something like this:
class MyClass {
public Action<int> MyAction = x => { throw new NotImplementedException() };
}
To allow the action to be overridden:
MyClass myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.MyAction = (x) => { Console.WriteLine(x); };

No. However if you declare the method as a lambda in the first place, you can set it, though I would try to do that at initialization time.
class MyClass {
public MyClass(Action<int> myMethod)
{
this.MyMethod = myMethod ?? x => { };
}
public readonly Action<int> MyMethod;
}
This however cannot implement an interface that has a MyMethod declared, unless the interface specifies a lambda property.
F# has object expressions, which allow you to compose an object out of lambdas. I hope at some point this is part of c#.

No. Methods cannot be used like variables.
If you were using JavaScript, then yes, you could do that.

You can write this code:
MyClass myObj = new MyClass();
myObj.TheAction = x => Console.WriteLine(x);
myObj.DoAction(3);
If you define MyClass in this way:
class MyClass
{
public Action<int> TheAction {get;set;}
public void DoAction(int x)
{
if (TheAction != null)
{
TheAction(x);
}
}
}
But that shouldn't be too surprising.

Not directly, but with a little code it's doable.
public class MyBase
{
public virtual int Convert(string s)
{
return System.Convert.ToInt32(s);
}
}
public class Derived : MyBase
{
public Func<string, int> ConvertFunc { get; set; }
public override int Convert(string s)
{
if (ConvertFunc != null)
return ConvertFunc(s);
return base.Convert(s);
}
}
then you could have code
Derived d = new Derived();
int resultBase = d.Convert("1234");
d.ConvertFunc = (o) => { return -1 * Convert.ToInt32(o); };
int resultCustom = d.Convert("1234");

Depending on what you want to do, there are many ways to solve this problem.
A good starting point is to make a delegate (e.g. Action) property that is gettable and settable. You can then have a method which delegates to that action property, or simply call it directly in client code. This opens up a lot of other options, such as making the action property private settable (perhaps providing a constructor to set it), etc.
E.g.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Foo myfoo = new Foo();
myfoo.MethodCall();
myfoo.DelegateAction = () => Console.WriteLine("Do something.");
myfoo.MethodCall();
myfoo.DelegateAction();
}
}
public class Foo
{
public void MethodCall()
{
if (this.DelegateAction != null)
{
this.DelegateAction();
}
}
public Action DelegateAction { get; set; }
}