I need a interface objectIMyInterface obj;that can swallow all classes object that inherit from it, as my sample code that are working well but inside I need implement function I don't need because IMyInterface require it, I try these two ways but both failed:
create virtual class MethodThatNotBelongToUsAll{} and try class ClassA_wrap : ClassA, MethodThatNotBelongToUsAll, IMyInterface but receive error class 'ClassA_wrap' cannot have multiple base classes
change interface IMyInterface to virtual class IMyInterface{} but the line obj = new ClassA_wrap(); show error cannot implicitly convert type "ClassA_wrap" to "IMyInterface"
can anyone help me with this? thx!
interface IMyInterface
{
int Foo0 { get; } //ClassA,B,C method
int FooWrap(int F); //ClassA_wrap,B_wrap,C_wrap method
int FooA(int F); // ClassA method
int FooB(int F); // ClassB method
int FooC(int F); // ClassC method
}
class ClassA //Base Class, can't edit
{
public int Foo0{ get { return 1; } }
public int FooA(int F) { return F; }
}
class ClassB //Base Class, can't edit
{
public int Foo0 { get { return 2; } }
public int FooB(int F) { return F; }
}
class ClassC //Base Class, can't edit
{
public int Foo0 { get { return 3; } }
public int FooC(int F) { return F; }
}
class ClassA_wrap : ClassA, IMyInterface
{
public int FooB(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooC(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooWrap(int F)
{
return FooA(F)*10+1;
}
}
class ClassB_wrap : ClassB, IMyInterface
{
public int FooA(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooC(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooWrap(int F)
{
return FooB(F)*20+2;
}
}
class ClassC_wrap : ClassC, IMyInterface
{
public int FooA(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooB(int F) { return -1; } // I want to get rid of this line, but Interface require to imp this...
public int FooWrap(int F)
{
return FooC(F)*30+3;
}
}
class MainClass
{
static void Main()
{
IMyInterface obj; //I need IMyInterface object that can swallow all three classes depend on flag
int flag = 2; // or 1 or 3
if(flag==1)
obj = new ClassA_wrap();
else if(flag==2)
obj = new ClassB_wrap();
else
obj = new ClassC_wrap();
//-----------------------------------------
Console.WriteLine( obj.Foo0);
//-----------------------------------------
if(obj is ClassA_wrap)
Console.WriteLine(obj.FooA(11));
if (obj is ClassB_wrap)
Console.WriteLine(obj.FooB(22));
if (obj is ClassC_wrap)
Console.WriteLine(obj.FooC(33));
//-----------------------------------------
Console.WriteLine(obj.FooWrap(1));
Console.Read();
}
}
Read it over here : Interface Segregation Principle
i think you need to look one of SOLID whichis I: interface segregation principle
this principle says that create seperate interce if you are having method in interface, which you calss is not going to implement.
i suggest design like this
public interface IMasterInterface
{
//contains all common method
int Foo0 { get; } //ClassA,B,C method
int FooWrap(int F); //ClassA_wrap,B_wrap,C_wrap method
}
public interface IFooA
{
//contians method related to A only
int FooA(int F); // ClassA method
}
public interface IFooB
{
//contians method related to B only
int FooB(int F); // ClassA method
}
public class A : IFooA,IMasterInterface
{
//common method
//now this will have method related to A only7
}
public class B: IFooB,IMasterInterface
{
//common method
//now this will have method related to B only
}
It is going to be hard to explain why Im doing the things im about to show you, but they have a reason so stay with me here. (suggestions are welcome).
I have a Functor which invokes a method on its input.
!Please note! the functor is actually an extension method so there must be a typing inference.
Also, I have an abstract class with 2 childs and an interface which demands a method signature.
The example code looks like this:
public sealed class AbstractionTester
{
internal static void Run()
{
// The functor here accepts A type but in my original code its just a generic type.
// I wanted to keep it simple for this example only
Func<A, bool> func = a =>
{
a.CallMe(); //Displays "Error"
return true;
};
B obj = new B();
func(obj);
}
}
internal interface ICallMe<T>
where T : MyEntity
{
T CallMe();
}
//Just a class which holds data I would like to store about every object I have, for example: CreateDate
internal abstract class MyEntity
{ }
internal abstract class A : MyEntity, ICallMe<A>
{
//some other fields i would like to store..
// This method here must never be invoked
public A CallMe()
{
//throw new Exception();
Console.WriteLine("Error");
return this;
}
}
internal class B : A, ICallMe<B>
{
public new B CallMe()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
return this;
}
}
internal class C : A, ICallMe<C>
{
public new C CallMe()
{
Console.WriteLine("C");
return this;
}
}
Everytime I call Run() the result is the Error is yeilded to the screen.
What can I do to enforce that this functor I have won't execute the method in the parent class.
Functor will never receive an instance of A anyway, because A is abstract (I mean pure A, not child of A)
Additional info:
I must explicity write the return types of CallMe in class B and C. I CANNOT change them to type A.
I need to keep the type of A (or something similar) in the functor because I need to infer the type for some code continuation.
It is really weird implementation. Why dont you use Visitor pattern?
Then you can do:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Element a = new A();
Element b = new B();
Element c = new C();
ICallMe callMe = new CallMe();
a.accept(callMe);
b.accept(callMe);
c.accept(callMe);
}
Implementation below:
public interface ICallMe
{
void Visit(A a);
void Visit(B b);
void Visit(C c);
}
public class CallMe : ICallMe
{
public void Visit(A c)
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
public void Visit(B b)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
public void Visit(C a)
{
Console.WriteLine("C");
}
}
interface Element
{
void accept(ICallMe visitor);
}
public class A : Element
{
public void accept(ICallMe visitor)
{
visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class B : Element
{
public void accept(ICallMe visitor)
{
visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class C : Element
{
public void accept(ICallMe visitor)
{
visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
Here is a solution that works without defining public A CallMe() as virtual. This has the benefit that child classes can define their CallMe() as new so they can return B or C. But it requires that you can make the classes public instead of internal (or you will get an error).
Use dynamic dispatch to call the actual runtime type instead of the type declared in the interface:
Func<A, bool> func = a => {
var runtimeType = (dynamic)a;
runtimeType.CallMe();
return true;
};
.net Fiddle
There is a specific language feature for this; interface reimplementation.
Reimplement explicitly the interface and make the generic functor take an ICallable<T>:
internal class B : A, ICallMe<B>
{
B ICallable<B>.CallMe()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
return this;
}
}
internal class C : A, ICallMe<C>
{
B ICallable<C>.CallMe()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
return this;
}
}
And your functor should be:
Func<T, bool> func = a => ...
And T should be constrained (at method or class level) to ICallable<T>.
UPDATE: If the functor is really an extension code, I'm not sure what the issue is:
public static bool MyEnxtensionMethod<T>(T argument)
where T: ICallable<T>
{
argument.CallMe();
return true;
}
Why do you need to keep A anywhere?
The best way to ensure that A's CallMe method is never invoked is for it to not exist.
internal abstract class MyEntity
{ }
internal abstract class A : MyEntity
{ }
Now it can never be invoked as you required.
Now make the interface covariant:
internal interface ICallMe<out T>
where T : MyEntity
{
T CallMe();
}
Then change Func<A, bool> to Func<ICallMe<A>, bool>
public sealed class AbstractionTester
{
internal static void Run()
{
// The functor here accepts A type but in my original code its just a generic type.
// I wanted to keep it simple for this example only
Func<ICallMe<A>, bool> func = a =>
{
a.CallMe(); //Displays "B"
return true;
};
B obj = new B();
func(obj);
}
}
I'm looking at a function with this pattern:
if( obj is SpecificClass1 )
{
((SpecificClass1)obj).SomeMethod1();
}
else if( obj is SpecificClass2 )
{
((SpecificClass2)obj).SomeMethod2();
}
else if( obj is SpecificClass3 )
{
((SpecificClass3)obj).SomeMethod3();
}
and get a code analysis warning: CA1800 Do not cast unnecessarily.
What's a good code pattern I can use to replace this code with that will be performant and concise.
Update
I didn't say, but obj is declared with type object.
I originally asked two questions here. I've split one off (which nobody had yet answered anyway): Why wouldn't the compiler optimize these two casts into one?
Interface
The best way would be to introduce an interface that all the types implement. This is only possible if the signatures match (or you don't have too many differences).
Using as
If creating an interface is not an option, you can get rid of the CA message by using the following pattern (though this also introduces unnecessary casts and therefore degrades performance a bit):
var specClass1 = obj as SpecificClass1;
var specClass2 = obj as SpecificClass2;
var specClass3 = obj as SpecificClass3;
if(specClass1 != null)
specClass1.SomeMethod1();
else if(specClass2 != null)
specClass2.SomeMethod2();
else if(specClass3 != null)
specClass3.SomeMethod3();
You can also change it to this structure (from my point of view, the above is better in terms of readability):
var specClass1 = obj as SpecificClass1;
if (specClass1 != null)
specClass1.SomeMethod1();
else
{
var specClass2 = obj as SpecificClass2;
if (specClass2 != null)
specClass2.SomeMethod2();
else
{
var specClass3 = obj as SpecificClass3;
if (specClass3 != null)
specClass3.SomeMethod3();
}
}
Registering the types in a dictionary
Also, if you have many types that you want to check for, you can register them in a dictionary and check against the entries of the dictionary:
var methodRegistrations = new Dictionary<Type, Action<object> act>();
methodRegistrations.Add(typeof(SpecificClass1), x => ((SpecificClass1)x).SomeMethod1());
methodRegistrations.Add(typeof(SpecificClass2), x => ((SpecificClass2)x).SomeMethod2());
methodRegistrations.Add(typeof(SpecificClass3), x => ((SpecificClass3)x).SomeMethod3());
var registrationKey = (from x in methodRegistrations.Keys
where x.IsAssignableFrom(obj.GetType()).FirstOrDefault();
if (registrationKey != null)
{
var act = methodRegistrations[registrationKey];
act(obj);
}
Please note that the registrations are easily extendable and that you can also call methods with different arguments in the action.
To avoid the double casting you could do the following
var objClass1= obj as SpecificClass1;
if(objClass1!=null)
objClass1.SomeMethod1();
Regarding the pattern you could make all these classes implement a common interface and make your method receive the interface.
public void SomeMethod(ISpecificInterface specific)
{
specific.SomeMethod1();
}
Can you do something like this here?
interface IBaseInterface
{
void SomeMethod();
}
public class Implementer1:IBaseInterface
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class Implementer2 : IBaseInterface
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class Implementer3 : IBaseInterface
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
And then, in caller code:
IBaseInterface concrete = GetInstance();
concrete.SomeMethod();
and GetInstance would create class objects based on conditions.
Your classes can be inherite a ISomeMethodInterface like this:
public interface ISomeMethodInterface
{
void SomeMethod();
}
public class SpecificClass1 : ISomeMethodInterface
{
//some code
public void SomeMethod()
{
}
}
public class SpecificClass2 : ISomeMethodInterface
{
//some code
public void SomeMethod()
{
}
}
public class SpecificClass3 : ISomeMethodInterface
{
//some code
public void SomeMethod()
{
}
}
And in your call:
((ISomeMethodsInterface)obj).SomeMethod();
The most extensible solution would probably be inheriting the concrete class while implementing an interface with a SomeMethod implementation that calls the correct SomeMethodx method on the inherited class. That way, you'll keep the existing interface while still keeping the existing methods.
public interface ISomething {
void SomeMethod();
}
public SpecificClass1Wrapper : SpecificClass1, ISomething {
void SomeMethod() { SomeMethod1(); }
}
If the objects are wrapped in this way before they're stored in the object reference, a cast to ISomething and a call to SomeMethod() will replace your entire if/else combination.
If the object on the other hand comes from code you have no way of extending and terse but still clear is what you're going for, you could create a simple helper method;
private bool CallIfType<T>(object obj, Action<T> action) where T : class
{
var concrete = obj as T;
if (concrete == null)
return false;
action(concrete);
return true;
}
You can then write the calls as a simple expression;
var tmp = CallIfType<SpecificClass1>(obj, x => x.SomeMethod1()) ||
CallIfType<SpecificClass2>(obj, x => x.SomeMethod2()) ||
CallIfType<SpecificClass3>(obj, x => x.SomeMethod3());
if(tmp)
Console.WriteLine("One of the methods was called");
Ok, bit rough, but:
public class BaseClass{}
public class SubClass1 : BaseClass
{
public void SomeMethod1()
{
}
}
public class SubClass2 : BaseClass
{
public void SomeMethod2()
{
}
}
public class Class1
{
public Class1()
{
var test = new SubClass1();
var lookup = new Dictionary<Type, Action<object>>
{
{typeof (SubClass1), o => ((SubClass1) o).SomeMethod1() },
{typeof (SubClass2), o => ((SubClass2) o).SomeMethod2() }
};
//probably best to check the type exists in the dictionary first,
//maybe wrap up the execution into a class of it's own so it's abstracted away
lookup[test.GetType()](test);
}
}
How about writing a method
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static bool TryCast<T>(this object from, out T to) where T : class
{
to = from as T;
return to != null;
}
}
and using it:
SpecificClass1 sc1;
SpecificClass2 sc2;
SpecificClass3 sc3;
if( obj.TryCast(out sc1) )
{
sc1.SomeMethod1();
}
else if( obj.TryCast(out sc2) )
{
sc2.SomeMethod2();
}
else if( obj.TryCast(out sc3) )
{
sc3.SomeMethod3();
}
Not sure if I'm missing a goal, but here's an option that should work.
if( obj is SpecificClass1 sc1 )
{
sc1.SomeMethod1();
}
else if( obj is SpecificClass2 sc2 )
{
sc2.SomeMethod2();
}
else if( obj is SpecificClass3 sc3 )
{
sc3.SomeMethod3();
}
else
{
throw new exception();
}
You can also
switch (obj)
{
case SpecificClass1 sc1:
sc1.SomeMethod1();
break;
case SpecificClass2 sc1:
sc2.SomeMethod2();
break;
case SpecificClass3 sc1:
sc3.SomeMethod3();
break;
default:
throw new Exception();
}
I have hierarchy of classes:
class A{}
class B: A {}
class C:B {}
is it possible to implement method in class A and it would be inherited by derived classes B and C and so on and that method should return value of class type?
A val = A.method(); (val is A)
B val = B.method(); (val is B)
C val = C.method(); (val is C)
And I don't want use of generics in call of this method, ie:
C val = C.method<C>();
Guys, excuse me, one elaboration, this method should be static.
I don't want to use generic in method istelf, because it forces to point type that method should return, whereas method should return type of its class.
class A
{
Method<T>()
{
T result;
return result;
}
}
If I have such method I can change return type:
D result = A.Method<D>();
but I wanted it to return value of type A;
No, that is not possible.
To call the method like that it would have to be static, and static methods are not inherited.
Using B.method() to call a static method in A is the same as using A.method(). The compiler just uses the type to determine where the method is, but it's impossible for the method to know if it was called using the A or B type.
Use an extension method:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
B x = new B();
x.Method();
}
}
public static class Ext
{
public static T Method<T>(this T obj)
where T : A,new()
{
return new T();
}
}
public class A
{
}
public class B : A
{
}
Or a variation thereof. Note that you must have some public member capable of creating an instance of the specified type. To expound, the compiler 'guesses' the value of the type parameter. The method is still generic, but generic syntax is nowhere to be seen when the method is called (usually).
Using some design patterns from C++ makes this easier:
class A
{
protected virtual A method_impl() { return new A(); }
public A method() { return method_impl(); }
}
class B : A
{
protected override A method_impl() { return new B(); }
public new B method() { return (B)method_impl(); }
}
class C : B
{
protected override A method_impl() { return new C(); }
public new C method() { return (C)method_impl(); }
}
Of course, this exact problem never arises in C++, which allows covariant return types for overrides.
Another way, using IoC pattern:
class A
{
protected virtual void method_impl(A a) { a.initialize(); }
public A method() { A result = new A(); method_impl(result); return result; }
}
class B : A
{
public new B method() { B result = new B(); method_impl(result); return result; }
}
class C : B
{
public new C method() { C result = new C(); method_impl(result); return result; }
}
Seeing as C# can't switch on a Type (which I gather wasn't added as a special case because is relationships mean that more than one distinct case might apply), is there a better way to simulate switching on type other than this?
void Foo(object o)
{
if (o is A)
{
((A)o).Hop();
}
else if (o is B)
{
((B)o).Skip();
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException("Unexpected type: " + o.GetType());
}
}
With C# 7, which shipped with Visual Studio 2017 (Release 15.*), you are able to use Types in case statements (pattern matching):
switch(shape)
{
case Circle c:
WriteLine($"circle with radius {c.Radius}");
break;
case Rectangle s when (s.Length == s.Height):
WriteLine($"{s.Length} x {s.Height} square");
break;
case Rectangle r:
WriteLine($"{r.Length} x {r.Height} rectangle");
break;
default:
WriteLine("<unknown shape>");
break;
case null:
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(shape));
}
With C# 6, you can use a switch statement with the nameof() operator (thanks #Joey Adams):
switch(o.GetType().Name) {
case nameof(AType):
break;
case nameof(BType):
break;
}
With C# 5 and earlier, you could use a switch statement, but you'll have to use a magic string containing the type name... which is not particularly refactor friendly (thanks #nukefusion)
switch(o.GetType().Name) {
case "AType":
break;
}
Switching on types is definitely lacking in C# (UPDATE: in C#7 / VS 2017 switching on types is supported - see Zachary Yates's answer). In order to do this without a large if/else if/else statement, you'll need to work with a different structure. I wrote a blog post awhile back detailing how to build a TypeSwitch structure.
https://learn.microsoft.com/archive/blogs/jaredpar/switching-on-types
Short version: TypeSwitch is designed to prevent redundant casting and give a syntax that is similar to a normal switch/case statement. For example, here is TypeSwitch in action on a standard Windows form event
TypeSwitch.Do(
sender,
TypeSwitch.Case<Button>(() => textBox1.Text = "Hit a Button"),
TypeSwitch.Case<CheckBox>(x => textBox1.Text = "Checkbox is " + x.Checked),
TypeSwitch.Default(() => textBox1.Text = "Not sure what is hovered over"));
The code for TypeSwitch is actually pretty small and can easily be put into your project.
static class TypeSwitch {
public class CaseInfo {
public bool IsDefault { get; set; }
public Type Target { get; set; }
public Action<object> Action { get; set; }
}
public static void Do(object source, params CaseInfo[] cases) {
var type = source.GetType();
foreach (var entry in cases) {
if (entry.IsDefault || entry.Target.IsAssignableFrom(type)) {
entry.Action(source);
break;
}
}
}
public static CaseInfo Case<T>(Action action) {
return new CaseInfo() {
Action = x => action(),
Target = typeof(T)
};
}
public static CaseInfo Case<T>(Action<T> action) {
return new CaseInfo() {
Action = (x) => action((T)x),
Target = typeof(T)
};
}
public static CaseInfo Default(Action action) {
return new CaseInfo() {
Action = x => action(),
IsDefault = true
};
}
}
One option is to have a dictionary from Type to Action (or some other delegate). Look up the action based on the type, and then execute it. I've used this for factories before now.
With JaredPar's answer in the back of my head, I wrote a variant of his TypeSwitch class that uses type inference for a nicer syntax:
class A { string Name { get; } }
class B : A { string LongName { get; } }
class C : A { string FullName { get; } }
class X { public string ToString(IFormatProvider provider); }
class Y { public string GetIdentifier(); }
public string GetName(object value)
{
string name = null;
TypeSwitch.On(value)
.Case((C x) => name = x.FullName)
.Case((B x) => name = x.LongName)
.Case((A x) => name = x.Name)
.Case((X x) => name = x.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture))
.Case((Y x) => name = x.GetIdentifier())
.Default((x) => name = x.ToString());
return name;
}
Note that the order of the Case() methods is important.
Get the full and commented code for my TypeSwitch class. This is a working abbreviated version:
public static class TypeSwitch
{
public static Switch<TSource> On<TSource>(TSource value)
{
return new Switch<TSource>(value);
}
public sealed class Switch<TSource>
{
private readonly TSource value;
private bool handled = false;
internal Switch(TSource value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public Switch<TSource> Case<TTarget>(Action<TTarget> action)
where TTarget : TSource
{
if (!this.handled && this.value is TTarget)
{
action((TTarget) this.value);
this.handled = true;
}
return this;
}
public void Default(Action<TSource> action)
{
if (!this.handled)
action(this.value);
}
}
}
You can use pattern matching in C# 7 or above:
switch (foo.GetType())
{
case var type when type == typeof(Player):
break;
case var type when type == typeof(Address):
break;
case var type when type == typeof(Department):
break;
case var type when type == typeof(ContactType):
break;
default:
break;
}
Create a superclass (S) and make A and B inherit from it. Then declare an abstract method on S that every subclass needs to implement.
Doing this the "foo" method can also change its signature to Foo(S o), making it type safe, and you don't need to throw that ugly exception.
C# 8 enhancements of pattern matching made it possible to do it like this. In some cases it do the job and more concise.
public Animal Animal { get; set; }
...
var animalName = Animal switch
{
Cat cat => "Tom",
Mouse mouse => "Jerry",
_ => "unknown"
};
Yes, thanks to C# 7 that can be achieved. Here's how it's done (using expression pattern):
switch (o)
{
case A a:
a.Hop();
break;
case B b:
b.Skip();
break;
case C _:
return new ArgumentException("Type C will be supported in the next version");
default:
return new ArgumentException("Unexpected type: " + o.GetType());
}
If you were using C# 4, you could make use of the new dynamic functionality to achieve an interesting alternative. I'm not saying this is better, in fact it seems very likely that it would be slower, but it does have a certain elegance to it.
class Thing
{
void Foo(A a)
{
a.Hop();
}
void Foo(B b)
{
b.Skip();
}
}
And the usage:
object aOrB = Get_AOrB();
Thing t = GetThing();
((dynamic)t).Foo(aorB);
The reason this works is that a C# 4 dynamic method invocation has its overloads resolved at runtime rather than compile time. I wrote a little more about this idea quite recently. Again, I would just like to reiterate that this probably performs worse than all the other suggestions, I am offering it simply as a curiosity.
You should really be overloading your method, not trying to do the disambiguation yourself. Most of the answers so far don't take future subclasses into account, which may lead to really terrible maintenance issues later on.
For built-in types, you can use the TypeCode enumeration. Please note that GetType() is kind of slow, but probably not relevant in most situations.
switch (Type.GetTypeCode(someObject.GetType()))
{
case TypeCode.Boolean:
break;
case TypeCode.Byte:
break;
case TypeCode.Char:
break;
}
For custom types, you can create your own enumeration, and either an interface or a base class with abstract property or method...
Abstract class implementation of property
public enum FooTypes { FooFighter, AbbreviatedFool, Fubar, Fugu };
public abstract class Foo
{
public abstract FooTypes FooType { get; }
}
public class FooFighter : Foo
{
public override FooTypes FooType { get { return FooTypes.FooFighter; } }
}
Abstract class implementation of method
public enum FooTypes { FooFighter, AbbreviatedFool, Fubar, Fugu };
public abstract class Foo
{
public abstract FooTypes GetFooType();
}
public class FooFighter : Foo
{
public override FooTypes GetFooType() { return FooTypes.FooFighter; }
}
Interface implementation of property
public enum FooTypes { FooFighter, AbbreviatedFool, Fubar, Fugu };
public interface IFooType
{
FooTypes FooType { get; }
}
public class FooFighter : IFooType
{
public FooTypes FooType { get { return FooTypes.FooFighter; } }
}
Interface implementation of method
public enum FooTypes { FooFighter, AbbreviatedFool, Fubar, Fugu };
public interface IFooType
{
FooTypes GetFooType();
}
public class FooFighter : IFooType
{
public FooTypes GetFooType() { return FooTypes.FooFighter; }
}
One of my coworkers just told me about this too: This has the advantage that you can use it for literally any type of object, not just ones that you define. It has the disadvantage of being a bit larger and slower.
First define a static class like this:
public static class TypeEnumerator
{
public class TypeEnumeratorException : Exception
{
public Type unknownType { get; private set; }
public TypeEnumeratorException(Type unknownType) : base()
{
this.unknownType = unknownType;
}
}
public enum TypeEnumeratorTypes { _int, _string, _Foo, _TcpClient, };
private static Dictionary<Type, TypeEnumeratorTypes> typeDict;
static TypeEnumerator()
{
typeDict = new Dictionary<Type, TypeEnumeratorTypes>();
typeDict[typeof(int)] = TypeEnumeratorTypes._int;
typeDict[typeof(string)] = TypeEnumeratorTypes._string;
typeDict[typeof(Foo)] = TypeEnumeratorTypes._Foo;
typeDict[typeof(System.Net.Sockets.TcpClient)] = TypeEnumeratorTypes._TcpClient;
}
/// <summary>
/// Throws NullReferenceException and TypeEnumeratorException</summary>
/// <exception cref="System.NullReferenceException">NullReferenceException</exception>
/// <exception cref="MyProject.TypeEnumerator.TypeEnumeratorException">TypeEnumeratorException</exception>
public static TypeEnumeratorTypes EnumerateType(object theObject)
{
try
{
return typeDict[theObject.GetType()];
}
catch (KeyNotFoundException)
{
throw new TypeEnumeratorException(theObject.GetType());
}
}
}
And then you can use it like this:
switch (TypeEnumerator.EnumerateType(someObject))
{
case TypeEnumerator.TypeEnumeratorTypes._int:
break;
case TypeEnumerator.TypeEnumeratorTypes._string:
break;
}
I liked Virtlink's use of implicit typing to make the switch much more readable, but I didn't like that an early-out isn't possible, and that we're doing allocations. Let's turn up the perf a little.
public static class TypeSwitch
{
public static void On<TV, T1>(TV value, Action<T1> action1)
where T1 : TV
{
if (value is T1) action1((T1)value);
}
public static void On<TV, T1, T2>(TV value, Action<T1> action1, Action<T2> action2)
where T1 : TV where T2 : TV
{
if (value is T1) action1((T1)value);
else if (value is T2) action2((T2)value);
}
public static void On<TV, T1, T2, T3>(TV value, Action<T1> action1, Action<T2> action2, Action<T3> action3)
where T1 : TV where T2 : TV where T3 : TV
{
if (value is T1) action1((T1)value);
else if (value is T2) action2((T2)value);
else if (value is T3) action3((T3)value);
}
// ... etc.
}
Well, that makes my fingers hurt. Let's do it in T4:
<## template debug="false" hostSpecific="true" language="C#" #>
<## output extension=".cs" #>
<## Assembly Name="System.Core.dll" #>
<## import namespace="System.Linq" #>
<## import namespace="System.IO" #>
<#
string GenWarning = "// THIS FILE IS GENERATED FROM " + Path.GetFileName(Host.TemplateFile) + " - ANY HAND EDITS WILL BE LOST!";
const int MaxCases = 15;
#>
<#=GenWarning#>
using System;
public static class TypeSwitch
{
<# for(int icase = 1; icase <= MaxCases; ++icase) {
var types = string.Join(", ", Enumerable.Range(1, icase).Select(i => "T" + i));
var actions = string.Join(", ", Enumerable.Range(1, icase).Select(i => string.Format("Action<T{0}> action{0}", i)));
var wheres = string.Join(" ", Enumerable.Range(1, icase).Select(i => string.Format("where T{0} : TV", i)));
#>
<#=GenWarning#>
public static void On<TV, <#=types#>>(TV value, <#=actions#>)
<#=wheres#>
{
if (value is T1) action1((T1)value);
<# for(int i = 2; i <= icase; ++i) { #>
else if (value is T<#=i#>) action<#=i#>((T<#=i#>)value);
<#}#>
}
<#}#>
<#=GenWarning#>
}
Adjusting Virtlink's example a little:
TypeSwitch.On(operand,
(C x) => name = x.FullName,
(B x) => name = x.LongName,
(A x) => name = x.Name,
(X x) => name = x.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture),
(Y x) => name = x.GetIdentifier(),
(object x) => name = x.ToString());
Readable and fast. Now, as everybody keeps pointing out in their answers, and given the nature of this question, order is important in the type matching. Therefore:
Put leaf types first, base types later.
For peer types, put more likely matches first to maximize perf.
This implies that there is no need for a special default case. Instead, just use the base-most type in the lambda, and put it last.
Given inheritance facilitates an object to be recognized as more than one type, I think a switch could lead to bad ambiguity. For example:
Case 1
{
string s = "a";
if (s is string) Print("Foo");
else if (s is object) Print("Bar");
}
Case 2
{
string s = "a";
if (s is object) Print("Foo");
else if (s is string) Print("Bar");
}
Because s is a string and an object.
I think when you write a switch(foo) you expect foo to match one and only one of the case statements. With a switch on types, the order in which you write your case statements could possibly change the result of the whole switch statement. I think that would be wrong.
You could think of a compiler-check on the types of a "typeswitch" statement, checking that the enumerated types do not inherit from each other. That doesn't exist though.
foo is T is not the same as foo.GetType() == typeof(T)!!
Should work with
case type _:
like:
int i = 1;
bool b = true;
double d = 1.1;
object o = i; // whatever you want
switch (o)
{
case int _:
Answer.Content = "You got the int";
break;
case double _:
Answer.Content = "You got the double";
break;
case bool _:
Answer.Content = "You got the bool";
break;
}
As per C# 7.0 specification, you can declare a local variable scoped in a case of a switch:
object a = "Hello world";
switch (a)
{
case string myString:
// The variable 'a' is a string!
break;
case int myInt:
// The variable 'a' is an int!
break;
case Foo myFoo:
// The variable 'a' is of type Foo!
break;
}
This is the best way to do such a thing because it involves just casting and push-on-the-stack operations, which are among the fastest operations an interpreter can run, just preceded by bitwise operations and boolean conditions.
As compared to using Dictionary<K, V>, here's much less memory usage and basically zero computation.
This, on the other hand, should be as fast (if not faster, even) as using a chain of if statements:
object a = "Hello world";
if (a is string)
{
// The variable 'a' is a string!
} else if (a is int)
{
// The variable 'a' is an int!
} // etc.
I would either
use method overloading (just like x0n), or
use subclasses (just like Pablo), or
apply the visitor pattern.
Another way would be to define an interface IThing and then implement it in both classes
here's the snipet:
public interface IThing
{
void Move();
}
public class ThingA : IThing
{
public void Move()
{
Hop();
}
public void Hop(){
//Implementation of Hop
}
}
public class ThingA : IThing
{
public void Move()
{
Skip();
}
public void Skip(){
//Implementation of Skip
}
}
public class Foo
{
static void Main(String[] args)
{
}
private void Foo(IThing a)
{
a.Move();
}
}
If you know the class you are expecting but you still don't have an object you can even do this:
private string GetAcceptButtonText<T>() where T : BaseClass, new()
{
switch (new T())
{
case BaseClassReview _: return "Review";
case BaseClassValidate _: return "Validate";
case BaseClassAcknowledge _: return "Acknowledge";
default: return "Accept";
}
}
You can create overloaded methods:
void Foo(A a)
{
a.Hop();
}
void Foo(B b)
{
b.Skip();
}
void Foo(object o)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Unexpected type: " + o.GetType());
}
And cast the argument to dynamic type in order to bypass static type checking:
Foo((dynamic)something);
You're looking for Discriminated Unions which are a language feature of F#, but you can achieve a similar effect by using a library I made, called OneOf
https://github.com/mcintyre321/OneOf
The major advantage over switch (and if and exceptions as control flow) is that it is compile-time safe - there is no default handler or fall through
void Foo(OneOf<A, B> o)
{
o.Switch(
a => a.Hop(),
b => b.Skip()
);
}
If you add a third item to o, you'll get a compiler error as you have to add a handler Func inside the switch call.
You can also do a .Match which returns a value, rather than executes a statement:
double Area(OneOf<Square, Circle> o)
{
return o.Match(
square => square.Length * square.Length,
circle => Math.PI * circle.Radius * circle.Radius
);
}
I would create an interface with whatever name and method name that would make sense for your switch, let's call them respectively: IDoable that tells to implement void Do().
public interface IDoable
{
void Do();
}
public class A : IDoable
{
public void Hop()
{
// ...
}
public void Do()
{
Hop();
}
}
public class B : IDoable
{
public void Skip()
{
// ...
}
public void Do()
{
Skip();
}
}
and change the method as follows:
void Foo<T>(T obj)
where T : IDoable
{
// ...
obj.Do();
// ...
}
At least with that you are safe at the compilation-time and I suspect that performance-wise it's better than checking type at runtime.
Create an interface IFooable, then make your A and B classes to implement a common method, which in turn calls the corresponding method you want:
interface IFooable
{
public void Foo();
}
class A : IFooable
{
//other methods ...
public void Foo()
{
this.Hop();
}
}
class B : IFooable
{
//other methods ...
public void Foo()
{
this.Skip();
}
}
class ProcessingClass
{
public void Foo(object o)
{
if (o == null)
throw new NullRefferenceException("Null reference", "o");
IFooable f = o as IFooable;
if (f != null)
{
f.Foo();
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException("Unexpected type: " + o.GetType());
}
}
}
Note, that it's better to use as instead first checking with is and then casting, as that way you make 2 casts, so it's more expensive.
I such cases I usually end up with a list of predicates and actions. Something along these lines:
class Mine {
static List<Func<object, bool>> predicates;
static List<Action<object>> actions;
static Mine() {
AddAction<A>(o => o.Hop());
AddAction<B>(o => o.Skip());
}
static void AddAction<T>(Action<T> action) {
predicates.Add(o => o is T);
actions.Add(o => action((T)o);
}
static void RunAction(object o) {
for (int i=0; o < predicates.Count; i++) {
if (predicates[i](o)) {
actions[i](o);
break;
}
}
}
void Foo(object o) {
RunAction(o);
}
}
With C# 8 onwards you can make it even more concise with the new switch. And with the use of discard option _ you can avoid creating innecesary variables when you don't need them, like this:
return document switch {
Invoice _ => "Is Invoice",
ShippingList _ => "Is Shipping List",
_ => "Unknown"
};
Invoice and ShippingList are classes and document is an object that can be either of them.
After having compared the options a few answers here provided to F# features, I discovered F# to have a way better support for type-based switching (although I'm still sticking to C#).
You might want to see here and here.
Try to go that way:
public void Test(BaseType #base)
{
switch (#base)
{
case ConcreteType concrete:
DoSomething(concrete);
break;
case AnotherConcrete concrete:
DoSomething(concrete);
break;
}
}
I agree with Jon about having a hash of actions to class name. If you keep your pattern, you might want to consider using the "as" construct instead:
A a = o as A;
if (a != null) {
a.Hop();
return;
}
B b = o as B;
if (b != null) {
b.Skip();
return;
}
throw new ArgumentException("...");
The difference is that when you use the patter if (foo is Bar) { ((Bar)foo).Action(); } you're doing the type casting twice. Now maybe the compiler will optimize and only do that work once - but I wouldn't count on it.
As Pablo suggests, interface approach is almost always the right thing to do to handle this. To really utilize switch, another alternative is to have a custom enum denoting your type in your classes.
enum ObjectType { A, B, Default }
interface IIdentifiable
{
ObjectType Type { get; };
}
class A : IIdentifiable
{
public ObjectType Type { get { return ObjectType.A; } }
}
class B : IIdentifiable
{
public ObjectType Type { get { return ObjectType.B; } }
}
void Foo(IIdentifiable o)
{
switch (o.Type)
{
case ObjectType.A:
case ObjectType.B:
//......
}
}
This is kind of implemented in BCL too. One example is MemberInfo.MemberTypes, another is GetTypeCode for primitive types, like:
void Foo(object o)
{
switch (Type.GetTypeCode(o.GetType())) // for IConvertible, just o.GetTypeCode()
{
case TypeCode.Int16:
case TypeCode.Int32:
//etc ......
}
}
This is an alternate answer that mixes contributions from JaredPar and VirtLink answers, with the following constraints:
The switch construction behaves as a function, and receives functions as parameters to cases.
Ensures that it is properly built, and there always exists a default function.
It returns after first match (true for JaredPar answer, not true for VirtLink one).
Usage:
var result =
TSwitch<string>
.On(val)
.Case((string x) => "is a string")
.Case((long x) => "is a long")
.Default(_ => "what is it?");
Code:
public class TSwitch<TResult>
{
class CaseInfo<T>
{
public Type Target { get; set; }
public Func<object, T> Func { get; set; }
}
private object _source;
private List<CaseInfo<TResult>> _cases;
public static TSwitch<TResult> On(object source)
{
return new TSwitch<TResult> {
_source = source,
_cases = new List<CaseInfo<TResult>>()
};
}
public TResult Default(Func<object, TResult> defaultFunc)
{
var srcType = _source.GetType();
foreach (var entry in _cases)
if (entry.Target.IsAssignableFrom(srcType))
return entry.Func(_source);
return defaultFunc(_source);
}
public TSwitch<TResult> Case<TSource>(Func<TSource, TResult> func)
{
_cases.Add(new CaseInfo<TResult>
{
Func = x => func((TSource)x),
Target = typeof(TSource)
});
return this;
}
}
Yes - just use the slightly weirdly named "pattern matching" from C#7 upwards to match on class or structure:
IObject concrete1 = new ObjectImplementation1();
IObject concrete2 = new ObjectImplementation2();
switch (concrete1)
{
case ObjectImplementation1 c1: return "type 1";
case ObjectImplementation2 c2: return "type 2";
}