Develop Reference

Check if generic object of subtype T

I'm trying to refactor the below into a generic function; the code sample below works for me if type is a specified in the function declaration. However, it fails when I try to use T.
I get an IENumerable-like object containing generic objects back from an external application, and from this want to filter out those that are of the specific type in question.
For context, these are geometric features selected on screen by the user prior to the code running. I need to validate that the correct type of thing has been picked, and return those things in a clean list.
Initial code with defined type that works:
public static List<Point> GetSelectedPoints()
{
List<Point> tmp = new List<Point>();
Selection oSel = GetSelectionObject();
for (int i = 1; i <= oSel.Count; i++)
{
try
{
if (oSel.Item(i).Value is Point)
{
Point P = (Point)oSel.Item(i).Value;
tmp.Add(P);
}
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("An error occurred whilst retrieving the selection");
}
}
return tmp;
}
Here the attempt to use T:
static public List<T> GetThisTypeFromSelection<T>()
{
Selection osel = GetSelectionObject();
List<T> tmp= new List<T>();
for(int i = 1; i<=osel.Count ; i++)
{
if (osel.Item(i).Value is T)
{
T thing = (T)osel.Item(i).Value;
tmp.Add(tmp);
}
}
return tmp;
}
osel.Item(i).Value.GetType() returns a "System.__ComObject"... Which is not helpful.
The object model of the external application is such that everything is derived from a single base class, with many layers of subclassing, something like this:
public class Base
{}
public class Geometry2d : Base
{ }
public class Line : Geometry2d
{ }
public class Circle : Line
{ }
public class Face : Geometry2d
{ }
public class PlanarFace : Face
{ }
public class CylindricalFace : Face
{ }
public class PlanarFaceDefinedThroughX : PlanarFace
{ }
public class PlanarFaceDefinedThroughY : PlanarFace
{ }
etcetera...
So, The selection object (while also deriving from base) returns a list of base object which could be...pretty much anything.
Depending on the application for this function, I might want to get, for example, everything that's a "Face" or derivative, or maybe just the PlanarFaces, or maybe even just the PlanarFaceDefinedThroughXs.
Update based on comments (kudos to mm8 pointing in the right direction)
static public List<T> GetThisTypeFromSelection<T>()
{
Selection osel = GetSelectionObject();
List<Base> listA = new List<Base>();
for(int i = 1; i<=osel.Count ; i++)
{
CATBaseDispatch CbD = osel.Item(i).Value;
listA.Add(CbD);
}
List<T> results = listA.Select(x => x).OfType<T>().ToList();
return results;
}
This approach seems to successfully filter out the right object types - but the returned list still shows them as COM objects...

If your Selection implements IEnumerable you could use Linq's OfType to filter items of desired type.

Cast array of unknowClass to array of otherClass in c#

How Can I dynamically cast at runtime.That is I am passing a child class object in the parent class object.
public abstract class tObject
{
public tObject[] someMthode(){;}
}
public class myClass : tObject
{
public string Oth0 { get; set; }
public string Oth1 { get; set; }
public string Oth2 { get; set; }
}
I want
myClass mc=new myClass();
tObject to=mc;
myClass[] mcArray=(myClass[])mc.someMthode();//System.InvalidCastException
//Unable to cast object of type 'tObject[]' to type 'myClass[]'
but when check any element of mcArray is correct
if (mcArray[0] is myClass)
{
//return true and run this ;
}
In fact I want cast when a method return array of tObject according to the base class :
subClass[] mcArray=(subClass[])instanceOfsubClass.someMthode()
subClass or myClass and ... are unknown class , and i don't know theirs name.
Solution
public T[] Cast<T>(tObject[] mcArray ) where T : tObject
{
if (mcArray != null)
{
int cnt = mcArray.GetLength(0);
T[] t = new T[cnt];
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
{
t[i] = (T)mcArray[i];
}
return t;
}
return null;
}
Thanks all for replies.

C# does not support that kind of array conversion. C# does -- unfortunately! -- support dangerous array covariance. That is, if you had an array myClass[] then you could implicitly convert it to an array tObject[]. This means that you can do this:
Tiger[] tigers = new Tiger[10];
Animal[] animals = tigers;
animals[0] = new Turtle();
and now we have a turtle inside an array of tigers. This crashes at runtime.
That's bad enough, but you want it to go the other way -- I have an array of animals and I'd like it to be treated as an array of tigers. That does not work in C#.
As other answers have noted, you'll need to make a second array and copy the contents of the first to the second. There are a number of helper methods to do so.

Maybe?
myClass mc = new myClass();
tObject to = mc;
//myClass[] mcArray = (myClass[])mc.someMthode();//System.InvalidCastException
//Unable to cast object of type 'tObject[]' to type 'myClass[]'
var mcArray = Array.ConvertAll(mc.someMthode(), item => (myClass) item);

Well, you can call IEnumerable.Cast for that:
var myArr = mc.someMethod().Cast<MyClass>().ToArray();
As MyClass[] implements IEnumerable<MyClass>.
EDIT: What you want is quite dangerous. Look the following code:
subClass[] mcArray=(subClass[]) new BaseClass[] {...};
If this conversion would work we could now simply make the following also:
mcArray[0] = new AnotherClass();
Now you have an array of subClasses containin one item of AnotherClass also.
If you do not know the type at compile-time you cannot expect the compiler to provide any compile-time-logic for a type it doesn´t know. Thus casting to an unknown type and calling members on isn´t supported. However you may achieve this using reflection:
var runtimeType = myArr[0].GetType();
var mi = runtimeType.GetMethod("SomeMethod");
var value = mi.Invoke(myArr[0]);
This is similar to the call
var value = ((subClass)myArr[0]).SomeMethod();

Why not solve it one step up the chain and make someMethod (spelling corrected) generic:
public abstract class tObject<T> where T:tObject
{
public T[] someMethod(){;}
}
public class myClass : tObject<myClass>
{
public string Oth0 { get; set; }
public string Oth1 { get; set; }
public string Oth2 { get; set; }
}
now myClass.someMethod returns a myclass[] and that problem is solved. However, since I'm assuming that tObject does other things that just create an array of tObjects, it may cause other problems that aren't inferrable from the code you provided.
Plus it's not 100% foolproof. There's nothing stopping you (or someone else) from defining:
public class myWeirdClass : tObject<myClass>
{
}
now myWeirdClass.someMethod also returns a myClass[], and the pattern is broken. Unfortunately there's no generic constraint that requires that the generic parameter be the defining class itself, so there's no way to prevent this flaw at compile-time.
Another option may be to move the array creation outside of the class itself, since it is a code smell in itself:
public class ObjectFactory<T> where T:tObject
{
public T[] SomeMethod()
{
... create an array of Ts
}
}

How to Ensure Immutability of a Generic

This example is in C# but the question really applies to any OO language. I'd like to create a generic, immutable class which implements IReadOnlyList. Additionally, this class should have an underlying generic IList which is unable to be modified. Initially, the class was written as follows:
public class Datum<T> : IReadOnlyList<T>
{
private IList<T> objects;
public int Count
{
get;
private set;
}
public T this[int i]
{
get
{
return objects[i];
}
private set
{
this.objects[i] = value;
}
}
public Datum(IList<T> obj)
{
this.objects = obj;
this.Count = obj.Count;
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return this.objects.GetEnumerator();
}
}
However, this isn't immutable. As you can likely tell, changing the initial IList 'obj' changes Datum's 'objects'.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<object> list = new List<object>();
list.Add("one");
Datum<object> datum = new Datum<object>(list);
list[0] = "two";
Console.WriteLine(datum[0]);
}
This writes "two" to the console. As the point of Datum is immutability, that's not okay. In order to resolve this, I've rewritten the constructor of Datum:
public Datum(IList<T> obj)
{
this.objects = new List<T>();
foreach(T t in obj)
{
this.objects.Add(t);
}
this.Count = obj.Count;
}
Given the same test as before, "one" appears on the console. Great. But, what if Datum contains a collection of non-immutable collection and one of the non-immutable collections is modified?
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<object> list = new List<object>();
List<List<object>> containingList = new List<List<object>>();
list.Add("one");
containingList.Add(list);
Datum<List<object>> d = new Datum<List<object>>(containingList);
list[0] = "two";
Console.WriteLine(d[0][0]);
}
And, as expected, "two" is printed out on the console. So, my question is, how do I make this class truly immutable?

You can't. Or rather, you don't want to, because the ways of doing it are so bad. Here are a few:
1. struct-only
Add where T : struct to your Datum<T> class. structs are usually immutable, but if it contains mutable class instances, it can still be modified (thanks Servy). The major downside is that all classes are out, even immutable ones like string and any immutable class you make.
var e = new ExtraEvilStruct();
e.Mutable = new Mutable { MyVal = 1 };
Datum<ExtraEvilStruct> datum = new Datum<ExtraEvilStruct>(new[] { e });
e.Mutable.MyVal = 2;
Console.WriteLine(datum[0].Mutable.MyVal); // 2
2. Create an interface
Create a marker interface and implement it on any immutable types you create. The major downside is that all built-in types are out. And you don't really know if classes implementing this are truly immutable.
public interface IImmutable
{
// this space intentionally left blank, except for this comment
}
public class Datum<T> : IReadOnlyList<T> where T : IImmutable
3. Serialize!
If you serialize and deserialize the objects that you are passed (e.g. with Json.NET), you can create completely-separate copies of them. Upside: works with many built-in and custom types you might want to put here. Downside: requires extra time and memory to create the read-only list, and requires that your objects are serializable without losing anything important. Expect any links to objects outside of your list to be destroyed.
public Datum(IList<T> obj)
{
this.objects =
JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<IList<T>>(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(obj));
this.Count = obj.Count;
}
I would suggest that you simply document Datum<T> to say that the class should only be used to store immutable types. This sort of unenforced implicit requirement exists in other types (e.g. Dictionary expects that TKey implements GetHashCode and Equals in the expected way, including immutability), because it's too difficult for it to not be that way.

Kind of hacky, and definitely more confusing than it's worth in my opinion, but if your T is guaranteed to be serializable, you can store string representations of the objects in your collection rather than storing the objects themselves. Then even if someone pulls an item from your collection and modifies it, your collection would still be intact.
It would be slow and you'd get a different object every time you pulled it from the list. So I'm not recommending this.
Something like:
public class Datum<T> : IReadOnlyList<T>
{
private IList<string> objects;
public T this[int i] {
get { return JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(objects[i]); }
private set { this.objects[i] = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(value); }
}
public Datum(IList<T> obj) {
this.objects = new List<string>();
foreach (T t in obj) {
this.objects.Add(JsonConvert.SerializeObject(t));
}
this.Count = obj.Count;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() {
return this.objects.Select(JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>).GetEnumerator();
}
}

It's impossible. There's no possible way to constrain the generic type to be immutable. The best that you can possibly do is write a collection that cannot allow the structure of that collection to be modified. There is no way to prevent the collection from being used as a collection of some mutable type.

think that such collections are not match OOP, because this design leads to specific co-relation between independent classes - collection and it's items. How one class can change behavior of other without knowlege of each other?
So suggestions of serialization and so can allow you to do it on hacky way, but better is to decide if it's so required to make collection of immutable items, who trys to change them except your own code? May be better "to not mutate" items rather than try "make them immutable".

I faced the same problem, where I implement an object (say CachedData<T>) which handles a cached copy of the property of another object (say T SourceData). When calling the constructor of CachedData, you pass a delegate which returns a SourceData. When calling CachedData<T>.value, you get a copy of SourceData, which is updated every now and then.
It would make no sense to try caching an object, as .Value would only cache the reference to the data, not the data itself. It would only make sense to cache data types, strings, and perhaps structures.
So I ended up:
Thoroughly documenting CachedData<T>, and
Throwing an error in the constructor if T is neither a ValueType, a Structure, or a String. Some like (forgive my VB): If GetType(T) <> GetType(String) AndAlso GetType(T).IsClass Then Throw New ArgumentException("Explain")

Check if two variables are of the same when the type is dynamic and both variables are the derivatives of same base class

Is it possible to check if the list contains an object of given (but dynamic) type, derrived from same basic abstract class?
The main problem is not about the list, but about comparing types itself.
In single variables and static variables, it's easy:
if(someVariable is int)
Checking the list with static type is also easy, like:
SomeList.OfType<int>().Any()
or
(from _Object in SomeList.OfType<int> where _Object is int select _Object).Count() == 0
but I cant't handle it if the type I want to check is dynamic, f.e. passed as method parameter:
abstract class BasicClass;
class DerivativeOne : BasicClass { }
class DerivativeTwo : BasicClass { }
// in main:
List<BasicClass> _List = new List<BasicClass>();
DerivativeOne a = new DerivativeOne();
DerivativeTwo b = new DerivativeTwo();
DerivativeOne c = new DerivativeOne();
if(!CheckIfTypeExistsInList(a, _List)
{
_List.Add(a);
}
if(!CheckIfTypeExistsInList(b, _List)
{
_List.Add(b);
}
if(!CheckIfTypeExistsInList(c, _List)
{
_List.Add(c); // this is what I don't want to happen,
// because I already have one object of type DerivativeOne in my list.
}
// the function:
bool CheckIfTypeExistsInList(BasicClass pObject, List<BasicClass> pList)
{
/// few attempts:
pList.OfType<(pObject.GetType()>().Any(); // attempt one, error
return (from _Object in SomeList.OfType<(pObject.GetType())> where _Object is int select _Object).Count() == 0; // attempt two, error
}
PS. I am aware that the code doesn't look neat, but I tried to show just the problem itself, skipping extra logic and stuff.
PS2. I am aware that the solution to the problem would be just to put some attribute to BasicClass and make each derivative to have unique value of the attribute, but still - I'm not looking for another route to solve the problem, I'm just interested if it's possible to do it "this" way.

When the type is known only at runtime, you cannot use it in a generic without using reflection. However, your task is simpler than that - you can use type equality to achieve the results that you want:
Type targetType = pObject.GetType();
if (SomeList.Any(o => targetType.Equals(o.GetType()))) {
...
}

c# copy constructor generator

I want to copy values from one object to another object. Something similar to pass by value but with assignment.
For example:
PushPin newValPushPin = oldPushPin; //I want to break the reference here.
I was told to write a copy constructor for this. But this class has a lot of properties, it will probably take an hour to write a copy constructor by hand.
Is there a better way to assign an object to another object by value?
If not, is there a copy constructor generator?
Note: ICloneable is not available in Silverlight.

If you can mark the object that is to be cloned as Serializable then you can use in-memory serialization to create a copy. Check the following code, it has the advantage that it will work on other kinds of objects as well and that you don't have to change your copy constructor or copy code each time an property is added, removed or changed:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = new Foo(10, "test", new Bar("Detail 1"), new Bar("Detail 2"));
var clonedFoo = foo.Clone();
Console.WriteLine("Id {0} Bar count {1}", clonedFoo.Id, clonedFoo.Bars.Count());
}
}
public static class ClonerExtensions
{
public static TObject Clone<TObject>(this TObject toClone)
{
var formatter = new BinaryFormatter();
using (var memoryStream = new MemoryStream())
{
formatter.Serialize(memoryStream, toClone);
memoryStream.Position = 0;
return (TObject) formatter.Deserialize(memoryStream);
}
}
}
[Serializable]
public class Foo
{
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<Bar> Bars { get; private set; }
public Foo(int id, string name, params Bar[] bars)
{
Id = id;
Name = name;
Bars = bars;
}
}
[Serializable]
public class Bar
{
public string Detail { get; private set; }
public Bar(string detail)
{
Detail = detail;
}
}

There is a protected member called "MemberwiseClone", you can write this in your class...
public MyClass Clone(){
return (MyClass)this.MemberwiseClone();
}
then you can access..
MyClass newObject = oldObject.Clone();

The only way (that I'm aware of) to do this, and do it correctly, is to implement the copy yourself. Take for example:
public class FrobAndState
{
public Frob Frobber { get; set;}
public bool State { get; set; }
}
public class Frob
{
public List<int> Values { get; private set; }
public Frob(int[] values)
{
Values = new List<int>(values);
}
}
In this example you'd need to know how Frob was implemented, i.e. the fact that you need to call the constructor to create a copy of it as Values is read-only, to be able to make a copy of a given instance of FrobAndState.
Also - you couldn't just implement FrobAndState.Copy thusly:
public class FrobAndState
{
// ... Properties
public FrobAndState Copy()
{
var new = new FrobAndState();
new.State = this.State;
new.Frobber = this.Frobber;
}
}
Because both the instance of FrobAndState that you called .Copy() on, and the new instance would both have a reference to the same instance of Frobber.
In short, copying things is hard and any Copy implementation is difficult to get right.

C# does not have a copy constructor. There are different ways to tackle this. At the OOP level you could use inheritance or aggregation. AutoMapper might also be worth a try.

I want to copy values from one object
to another object. Something similiar
to pass by value but with assignment.
What do you mean by "with assignment"? If you mean that you want people to be able to say:
a = b;
And for you to define what = means, the only way you can do that in C# is if b is a different type to a and you've defined an implicit conversion (or more tenuously, if a stands for something of the form x.Y where Y is a property with a setter). You can't override = for a simple assignment between identical types in C#.
I was told to write a copy constructor
for this. But this class has alot of
properties, it will probably take an
hour to write a copy constructor by
hand.
If that's really true, then I would guess that you have a different problem. Your class is too big.

If you make your class Serializable you could Serialize it to a MemoryStream and Deserialize to a new instance.

If you want copy-on-assignment you should be using a struct instead of a class. But be careful, it is easy to make subtle mistakes. It is highly recommended that all stucts be immmutable to reduce the chance for error.

Though, this may not answer your question directly, but to add a cent; usually the term Clone is linked with shallow copy(referenced objects). To have a deep copy, I believe you will need to look into the some creational pattern(prototype?). The answer to this question might help.

You implement Justin Angel's method of cloning objects in Silverlight
using System;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Windows;
namespace JustinAngelNet.Silverlight.Framework
{
public static class SilverlightExtensions
{
public static T Clone<T>(T source)
{
T cloned = (T) Activator.CreateInstance(source.GetType());
foreach (PropertyInfo curPropInfo in source.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (curPropInfo.GetGetMethod() != null
&& (curPropInfo.GetSetMethod() != null))
{
// Handle Non-indexer properties
if (curPropInfo.Name != "Item")
{
// get property from source
object getValue = curPropInfo.GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {});
// clone if needed
if (getValue != null && getValue is DependencyObject)
getValue = Clone((DependencyObject) getValue);
// set property on cloned
if (getValue != null)
curPropInfo.GetSetMethod().Invoke(cloned, new object[] {getValue});
}
// handle indexer
else
{
// get count for indexer
int numberofItemInColleciton =
(int)
curPropInfo.ReflectedType.GetProperty("Count").GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {});
// run on indexer
for (int i = 0; i < numberofItemInColleciton; i++)
{
// get item through Indexer
object getValue = curPropInfo.GetGetMethod().Invoke(source, new object[] {i});
// clone if needed
if (getValue != null && getValue is DependencyObject)
getValue = Clone((DependencyObject) getValue);
// add item to collection
curPropInfo.ReflectedType.GetMethod("Add").Invoke(cloned, new object[] {getValue});
}
}
}
}
return cloned;
}
}
}
Then you can do this
MyClass newObject = SilverlightExtensions.Clone(oldObject);