Develop Reference

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

C# reflection and instantiation - is there a way to do Activator.CreateInstance(myType){ X = x }?

I'm not sure of the terminology for this kind of code, but I want to know if it's possible to instantiate variables after the parentheses, but whilst using reflection.
I have a map which gets loaded from an XML file. This is a collection of (int X, int Y, string S) where the X,Y is the position of some terrain, and S is a string representing the type of the terrain. I have a dictionary to pass between the strings and the relevant types; for example one key-value pair might be "Tree", typeof(Tree).
When using reflection, although I know it's possible to instantiate with parameters, the only way I'm comfortable is just by using Activator.CreateInstance(Type t), i.e. with an empty constructor.
When I had the maps hard coded, I would originally instantiate like this (within some i,j for loop):
case: "Tree"
world.Add( new Tree(i,j) );
Whilst starting to think about reflection and my save file, I changed this to:
world.Add( new Tree() { X = i, Y = j }
However, I realised that this won't work with reflection, so I am having to do the following (Tree inherits from Terrain, and the dictionary just converts the XML save data string to a type):
Type type = dictionary[dataItem.typeAsString];
Terrain t = (Terrain)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
t.X = i;
t.Y = j;
world.Add(t);
I would prefer to do this using something like
Type type = dictionary[dataItem.typeAsString];
world.Add((Terrain)Activator.CreateInstance(type) { X = i, Y = j }
Is there any shortcut like this? I guess if not I could edit world.Add to take an X and Y and cast to Terrain in there to access those variables, but I am still curious as to a) what this {var1 = X, var2 = Y} programming is called, and b) whether something similar exists when using reflection.

This syntax is called Object Initializer syntax and is just syntactic sugar for setting the properties.
The code var result = new MyType { X = x } will be compiled to this:
MyType __tmp = new MyType();
__tmp.X = x;
MyType result = __tmp;
You will have to do that yourself using PropertyInfo.SetValue if you know the instantiated type only at runtime or use the normal property setters if the type is known at compile time.

The answer is no, because the object initialization syntax you mention (introduced with LINQ in 3.0) is an illusion of the compiler. As in, when you type this
var foo = new Foo { Bar = "baz" };
the compiler actually converts it into CLS-compliant IL which equates to
var foo = new Foo();
foo.Bar = "baz";
Phil Haack has a great blog post which not only covers the details of this rewriting done by the compiler, but also some side effects it can cause when dealing with types that implement IDisposable
As all of this is nothing but a feint by the compiler, there is no equivalent using reflection (i.e., Activator.CreateInstance(Type t)). Others will give you workarounds, but in the end there really is no direct equivalent.
Probably the closest generic hack you could manage would be to create a method that accepted an object, then used reflection in order to identify the properties of that object and their respective values in order to perform object initialization for you. It might be used something like this
var foo = Supercollider.Initialize<Foo>(new { Bar = "baz" });
and the code would be something like (this is off the top of my head)
public sealed class Supercollider
{
public static T Initialize<T>(object propertySource)
{
// you can provide overloads for types that don't have a default ctor
var result = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
foreach(var prop in ReflectionHelper.GetProperties(typeof(T)))
ReflectionHelper.SetPropertyValue(
result, // the target
prop, // the PropertyInfo
propertySource); // where we get the value
}
}
You'd have to get each property from the anonymous object, find a property in your target type with the same exact name and type, then get the value from that property in the anonymous object and set the value of your target's property to this value. Its not incredibly hard, but its absolutely prone to runtime exceptions and issues where the compiler chooses a different type for the anonymous type's property, requiring you be more specific (e.g., new { Bar = (string)null }), which screws with the elegance of the thing.

(T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), param1, param2, ...);
As described HERE.

public sealed class ReflectionUtils
{
public static T ObjectInitializer<T>(Action<T> initialize)
{
var result = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
initialize(result);
return result;
}
}
public class MyModel
{
public string Name{get;set;}
}
And after that just make the call :
var myModel = ReflectionUtils.ObjectInitializer<MyModel>(m =>
{
m.Name = "Asdf"
});
The advantage is that in this way you will have type safety and use reflection as minimum required, because we all know that reflection is an expensive operation that should be avoided as much as possible.

You could create a constructor which takes those arguments, then use
Activator.CreateInstance(type, i, j)
But you won't be able to use the object initialization syntax. Which is just sugar candy for setting the properties.

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

C# Generic Generics (A Serious Question)

In C# I am trying to write code where I would be creating a Func delegate which is in itself generic. For example the following (non-Generic) delegate is returning an arbitrary string:
Func<string> getString = () => "Hello!";
I on the other hand want to create a generic which acts similarly to generic methods. For example if I want a generic Func to return default(T) for a type T. I would imagine that I write code as follows:
Func<T><T> getDefaultObject = <T>() => default(T);
Then I would use it as
getDefaultObject<string>() which would return null and if I were to write getDefaultObject<int>() would return 0.
This question is not merely an academic excercise. I have found numerous places where I could have used this but I cannot get the syntax right. Is this possible? Are there any libraries which provide this sort of functionality?

Well you can't overload anything based only on the return value, so this includes variables.
You can however get rid of that lambda expression and write a real function:
T getDefaultObject<T>() { return default(T); }
and then you call it exactly like you want:
int i=getDefaultObject<int>(); // i=0
string s=getDefaultObject<string>(); // s=null

Though one might find practical workarounds like Stephen Cleary's
Func<T> CreateGetDefaultObject<T>() { return () => default(T); }
where you can specify the generics directly, this is a quite interesting problem from a theoretical point that cannot be solved by C#'s current type system.
A type which, as you call it, is in itself generic, is referred to as a higher-rank type.
Consider the following example (pseudo-C#):
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test(Func<?> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
In your proposed system, a call could look like that:
Test(x => new[] { x }); // Returns ({ 1 }, { "Hello" })
But the question is: How do we type the function Test and it's argument f?
Apparently, f maps every type T to an array T[] of this type. So maybe?
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test<T>(Func<T, T[]> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
But this doesn't work. We can't parameterize Test with any particular T, since f should can be applied to all types T. At this point, C#'s type system can't go further.
What we needed was a notation like
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test(forall T : Func<T, T[]> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
In your case, you could type
forall T : Func<T> getDefaultValue = ...
The only language I know that supports this kind of generics is Haskell:
test :: (forall t . t -> [t]) -> ([Int], [String])
test f = (f 1, f "hello")
See this Haskellwiki entry on polymorphism about this forall notation.

This isn't possible, since a delegate instance in C# cannot have generic parameters. The closest you can get is to pass the type object as a regular parameter and use reflection. :(
In many cases, casting to dynamic helps remove the pain of reflection, but dynamic doesn't help when creating new instances, such as your example.

You can't do this, because generic type parameters have to be known at runtime. You have to use the activator class:
Object o = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(StringBuilder));
which will do exactly what you want to. You can write it as the following:
public T Default<T>()
{
return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
}
Edit
Blindy's solution is better.

How can I evaluate C# code dynamically?

I can do an eval("something()"); to execute the code dynamically in JavaScript. Is there a way for me to do the same thing in C#?
An example of what I am trying to do is: I have an integer variable (say i) and I have multiple properties by the names: "Property1", "Property2", "Property3", etc.
Now, I want to perform some operations on the " Propertyi " property depending on the value of i.
This is really simple with Javascript. Is there any way to do this with C#?

Using the Roslyn scripting API (more samples here):
// add NuGet package 'Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Scripting'
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Scripting;
await CSharpScript.EvaluateAsync("System.Math.Pow(2, 4)") // returns 16
You can also run any piece of code:
var script = await CSharpScript.RunAsync(#"
class MyClass
{
public void Print() => System.Console.WriteLine(1);
}")
And reference the code that was generated in previous runs:
await script.ContinueWithAsync("new MyClass().Print();");

DISCLAIMER: This answer was written back in 2008. The landscape has changed drastically since then.
Look at the other answers on this page, especially the one detailing Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Scripting.
Rest of answer will be left as it was originally posted but is no longer accurate.
Unfortunately, C# isn't a dynamic language like that.
What you can do, however, is to create a C# source code file, full with class and everything, and run it through the CodeDom provider for C# and compile it into an assembly, and then execute it.
This forum post on MSDN contains an answer with some example code down the page somewhat:
create a anonymous method from a string?
I would hardly say this is a very good solution, but it is possible anyway.
What kind of code are you going to expect in that string? If it is a minor subset of valid code, for instance just math expressions, it might be that other alternatives exists.
Edit: Well, that teaches me to read the questions thoroughly first. Yes, reflection would be able to give you some help here.
If you split the string by the ; first, to get individual properties, you can use the following code to get a PropertyInfo object for a particular property for a class, and then use that object to manipulate a particular object.
String propName = "Text";
PropertyInfo pi = someObject.GetType().GetProperty(propName);
pi.SetValue(someObject, "New Value", new Object[0]);
Link: PropertyInfo.SetValue Method

Not really. You can use reflection to achieve what you want, but it won't be nearly as simple as in Javascript. For example, if you wanted to set the private field of an object to something, you could use this function:
protected static void SetField(object o, string fieldName, object value)
{
FieldInfo field = o.GetType().GetField(fieldName, BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
field.SetValue(o, value);
}

This is an eval function under c#. I used it to convert anonymous functions (Lambda Expressions) from a string.
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/evalcscode.aspx
public static object Eval(string sCSCode) {
CSharpCodeProvider c = new CSharpCodeProvider();
ICodeCompiler icc = c.CreateCompiler();
CompilerParameters cp = new CompilerParameters();
cp.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.dll");
cp.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.xml.dll");
cp.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.data.dll");
cp.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.windows.forms.dll");
cp.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.drawing.dll");
cp.CompilerOptions = "/t:library";
cp.GenerateInMemory = true;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("");
sb.Append("using System;\n" );
sb.Append("using System.Xml;\n");
sb.Append("using System.Data;\n");
sb.Append("using System.Data.SqlClient;\n");
sb.Append("using System.Windows.Forms;\n");
sb.Append("using System.Drawing;\n");
sb.Append("namespace CSCodeEvaler{ \n");
sb.Append("public class CSCodeEvaler{ \n");
sb.Append("public object EvalCode(){\n");
sb.Append("return "+sCSCode+"; \n");
sb.Append("} \n");
sb.Append("} \n");
sb.Append("}\n");
CompilerResults cr = icc.CompileAssemblyFromSource(cp, sb.ToString());
if( cr.Errors.Count > 0 ){
MessageBox.Show("ERROR: " + cr.Errors[0].ErrorText,
"Error evaluating cs code", MessageBoxButtons.OK,
MessageBoxIcon.Error );
return null;
}
System.Reflection.Assembly a = cr.CompiledAssembly;
object o = a.CreateInstance("CSCodeEvaler.CSCodeEvaler");
Type t = o.GetType();
MethodInfo mi = t.GetMethod("EvalCode");
object s = mi.Invoke(o, null);
return s;
}

I have written an open source project, Dynamic Expresso, that can convert text expression written using a C# syntax into delegates (or expression tree). Expressions are parsed and transformed into Expression Trees without using compilation or reflection.
You can write something like:
var interpreter = new Interpreter();
var result = interpreter.Eval("8 / 2 + 2");
or
var interpreter = new Interpreter()
.SetVariable("service", new ServiceExample());
string expression = "x > 4 ? service.SomeMethod() : service.AnotherMethod()";
Lambda parsedExpression = interpreter.Parse(expression,
new Parameter("x", typeof(int)));
parsedExpression.Invoke(5);
My work is based on Scott Gu article http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx .

All of that would definitely work. Personally, for that particular problem, I would probably take a little different approach. Maybe something like this:
class MyClass {
public Point point1, point2, point3;
private Point[] points;
public MyClass() {
//...
this.points = new Point[] {point1, point2, point3};
}
public void DoSomethingWith(int i) {
Point target = this.points[i+1];
// do stuff to target
}
}
When using patterns like this, you have to be careful that your data is stored by reference and not by value. In other words, don't do this with primitives. You have to use their big bloated class counterparts.
I realized that's not exactly the question, but the question has been pretty well answered and I thought maybe an alternative approach might help.

I don't now if you absolutely want to execute C# statements, but you can already execute Javascript statements in C# 2.0. The open-source library Jint is able to do it. It's a Javascript interpreter for .NET. Pass a Javascript program and it will run inside your application. You can even pass C# object as arguments and do automation on it.
Also if you just want to evaluate expression on your properties, give a try to NCalc.

You can use reflection to get the property and invoke it. Something like this:
object result = theObject.GetType().GetProperty("Property" + i).GetValue(theObject, null);
That is, assuming the object that has the property is called "theObject" :)

You also could implement a Webbrowser, then load a html-file wich contains javascript.
Then u go for the document.InvokeScript Method on this browser. The return Value of the eval function can be catched and converted into everything you need.
I did this in several Projects and it works perfectly.
Hope it helps

Uses reflection to parse and evaluate a data-binding expression against an object at run time.
DataBinder.Eval Method

I have written a package, SharpByte.Dynamic, to simplify the task of compiling and executing code dynamically. The code can be invoked on any context object using extension methods as detailed further here.
For example,
someObject.Evaluate<int>("6 / {{{0}}}", 3))
returns 3;
someObject.Evaluate("this.ToString()"))
returns the context object's string representation;
someObject.Execute(#
"Console.WriteLine(""Hello, world!"");
Console.WriteLine(""This demonstrates running a simple script"");
");
runs those statements as a script, etc.
Executables can be gotten easily using a factory method, as seen in the example here--all you need is the source code and list of any expected named parameters (tokens are embedded using triple-bracket notation, such as {{{0}}}, to avoid collisions with string.Format() as well as Handlebars-like syntaxes):
IExecutable executable = ExecutableFactory.Default.GetExecutable(executableType, sourceCode, parameterNames, addedNamespaces);
Each executable object (script or expression) is thread-safe, can be stored and reused, supports logging from within a script, stores timing information and last exception if encountered, etc. There is also a Copy() method compiled on each to allow creating cheap copies, i.e. using an executable object compiled from a script or expression as a template for creating others.
Overhead of executing an already-compiled script or statement is relatively low, at well under a microsecond on modest hardware, and already-compiled scripts and expressions are cached for reuse.

You could do it with a prototype function:
void something(int i, string P1) {
something(i, P1, String.Empty);
}
void something(int i, string P1, string P2) {
something(i, P1, P2, String.Empty);
}
void something(int i, string P1, string P2, string P3) {
something(i, P1, P2, P3, String.Empty);
}
and so on...

I was trying to get a value of a structure (class) member by it's name. The structure was not dynamic. All answers didn't work until I finally got it:
public static object GetPropertyValue(object instance, string memberName)
{
return instance.GetType().GetField(memberName).GetValue(instance);
}
This method will return the value of the member by it's name. It works on regular structure (class).

You might check the Heleonix.Reflection library. It provides methods to get/set/invoke members dynamically, including nested members, or if a member is clearly defined, you can create a getter/setter (lambda compiled into a delegate) which is faster than reflection:
var success = Reflector.Set(instance, null, $"Property{i}", value);
Or if number of properties is not endless, you can generate setters and chache them (setters are faster since they are compiled delegates):
var setter = Reflector.CreateSetter<object, object>($"Property{i}", typeof(type which contains "Property"+i));
setter(instance, value);
Setters can be of type Action<object, object> but instances can be different at runtime, so you can create lists of setters.

Unfortunately, C# doesn't have any native facilities for doing exactly what you are asking.
However, my C# eval program does allow for evaluating C# code. It provides for evaluating C# code at runtime and supports many C# statements. In fact, this code is usable within any .NET project, however, it is limited to using C# syntax. Have a look at my website, http://csharp-eval.com, for additional details.

the correct answer is you need to cache all the result to keep the mem0ry usage low.
an example would look like this
TypeOf(Evaluate)
{
"1+1":2;
"1+2":3;
"1+3":5;
....
"2-5":-3;
"0+0":1
}
and add it to a List
List<string> results = new List<string>();
for() results.Add(result);
save the id and use it in the code
hope this helps