Develop Reference

How To Define A Generic Type Parameter That Is Self Referencing

Consider the following class/interface definitions:
public abstract class Foo<TFoo> : IFoo
where TFoo: Foo<TFoo>
{
public TFoo This => (TFoo)this;
}
public interface IFoo { }
Suppose I also had a method defined where I wanted to pass in a TFoo<> into it:
public static void Test<T>() where T : IFoo { }
Is this possible without defining a class that removes the self-referencing type constraint?
public abstract class Foo2 : Foo<Foo2> { }
Is there a way to call the Test method without the non-self-referencing class?
Test<Foo<?>>();// What goes here <?>
Test<Foo2>(); // This works but I don't want to create a Foo2 class..

If you are asking whether or not you can skip providing the Generic type, i.e:
Test<Foo<>>
then no you can't, because it is inferred at compile time.
Generally, everything concerning generics and type parameters is specified at compile-time and you can't omit to provide the Generic type parameter or provide a default value.

Is it possible to use/extract the type used by a generic to define a second generic's type?

I know the title may be a little unclear, so I'll explain what I'm trying to do.
Note, this is more for educational reasons around the language's capabilities. In other words if this is possible, not should this be the way to go about it.
Consider the following generic class:
public class Foo<TId>
{
TId Id { get; set; }
}
Now consider concrete subclasses based on the above. Here's two examples using 'int' and 'string'...
public class IntFoo : Foo<int>
{
}
public class StrFoo : Foo<string>
{
}
And finally a generic that takes a Foo as a type parameter, and inherits from a Laa which takes its type parameter from Foo.
public class BaseClass<TFoo, TFooId> : Laa<TFooId>
{
}
public class Laa<TFooId>
{
}
Here's how you'd do the one based on an int and string, but note in addition to IntFoo and StrFoo, I have to also define int and foo explicitly...
public class IntFinal : BaseClass<IntFoo, int>
{
char somePropSpecificToIntFinal{ get; set; }
}
public class StrFinal : BaseClass<StrFoo, string>
{
char somePropSpecificToStrFinal{ get; set; }
}
Note that these 'final' classes are concrete types with their own properties which can't be reduced to a generic that takes a type (i.e. using a generic with the single type T, that then subclasses another generic that takes Foo and T as its arguments.
I'm wondering is if there's a way to have that type inferred so it can be written like so...
public class IntFinal : BaseClass<IntFoo>
{
}
public class StrFinal : BaseClass<StrFoo>
{
}
...and have the type for Laa implied from the generic specified on Foo. Here's a pseudo-code example of what I want.
public class BaseClass<TFoo> : Laa<TFoo.IdType>
{
}
So is that possible in C#?
Note, if this can't be done with classes, can it be done with interfaces?
Consider this...
interface IFoo
{
Type FoosType { get; }
}
public class Foo<TId> : Foo
{
TId Id { get; set; }
Type FoosType { get{ return TId } }
}
Then do this...
public class BaseClass<TFoo> : Laa<TFoo.FoosType>
where TFoo : Foo
{
}
(Note: FoosType would have to be static technically, and you can't inherit using statics so again, this is pseudo-code.)
If you constrained TFoo to IFoo, could you then use 'FoosType' as the type specifier when defining Laa?

You can't do that based on the C# specification. Type inference currently works for methods only and doesn't work for types (classes like your case)
Second rule that breaks your needed result is that you can't specify one generic type argument and infer the other, it is Provide all or Infer all case for methods.
C# specification:
1.6.3 Type parameters
When the generic class is used, type arguments must be provided for each of the type parameters

Your question is not very specific, and it's not clear what the actual constraints and requirements are. That said…
Type inference only occurs for generic methods, not generic types. So taking your question literally, the answer is no, there is no way to infer the type.
What might work for you is to use Foo<TId> in the class definition instead of IntFoo:
class BaseClass<TFooId> : Laa<TFooId>
{
public Foo<TFooId> Method() { ... }
}
(Of course, you can apply the type anywhere appropriate: fields, property types, etc.)
I.e. instead of coding the BaseClass type with two type parameters, just use the one that uniquely defines the interesting/useful elements of the Foo<TFooId> base class you're using, and then use that base type instead of the more-derived IntFoo
In your example, you have no constraints for the TFoo class, so it's not like BaseClass<TFoo, TFooId> was going to be able to use even the base type class members from Foo<TId> anyway. But even if you did mean to constrain TFoo to Foo<TFooId>, it seems likely you wouldn't really need to specify that type anyway.
If the above is not useful, then you need to add a lot more detail to your question, to explain precisely what is needed. Consider also that it's likely people have already gone down this road, and that if you express your question less about the mechanics of the implementation you think you need, you instead phrase it at a higher level, you might likely find existing questions on Stack Overflow or articles elsewhere that already address that broader question.
At the very least, if you are unable to find such references yourself, expressing your question that way may yield better answers faster.
See also XY Problem.

C# public class where T : class, Class, new() confusion

I am new to C# and I am faced with a class with this structure:
public class SimpleGetter<TSubs> : GetterBase<TSubs>, ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>
where TSubs : class, ISimpleSubscription, new()
{
UserSubscriptionsResponse<TSubs> ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>.Get()
{
return ((ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>)this).Get(null);
}
UserSubscriptionsResponse<TSubs> ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>.Get(string userId)
{
return GetSubsResponse(userId);
}
}
I need to pass userID to the get() function (if possible), but I am confused on how to do that. I have tried to do some research on this but I do not even know what this way of defining a class is called. I come from objective c where things seem more straight forward.

I do not even know what this way of defining a class is called
This is a generic class.
public class SimpleGetter<TSubs> : GetterBase<TSubs>, ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>
where TSubs : class, ISimpleSubscription, new()
which has one generic type parameter TSubs. This class inherits the GetterBase<TSubs> and implements the interface ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs>. Furthermore, the TSubs must be a reference type and must have a parameterless constructor, which implements the ISimpleSubscription interface.
public class FakeSubs : ISimpleSubscription
{
public FakeSubs()
{
}
// Here you have to implement ISimpleSubscription.
// You could also define any properties, methods etc.
}
// Now you could use your generic class as below:
var simpleGetter = new SimpleGetter<FakeSubs>();
Having created the above instance, you can call the Get method as Tewr, pointed out in his comment:
var response = ((ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<FakeSubs>)simpleGetter).Get(42);

Just to complement Christos' answer and help you understand the syntax a bit better, let's break the class definition term by term.
public - visible to all callers.
class - a reference type (i.e. not a struct).
SimpleGetter<TSubs> - the class name is SimpleGetter, and it is generic with respect to the parameter TSubs.
: GetterBase<TSubs> - it inherits from a base class which is itself generic with respect to the parameter TSubs.
, ISubscriptionsSingleGetter<TSubs> - and it also implements the generic interface ISubscriptionSingleGetter.
where TSubs: - there are some constraints on the type which the generic parameter TSubs must be of.
class - it must itself also be a reference type.
ISimpleSubscription - it must implement this (non-generic) interface.
new() - it must have a public parameterless constructor.

Generics: why can't the compiler infer the type parameter contraints? [duplicate]

Item class
public class Item
{
public bool Check(int value) { ... }
}
Base abstract class with generic type constraint
public abstract class ClassBase<TItem>
where TItem : Item
{
protected IList<TItem> items;
public ClassBase(IEnumerable<TItem> items)
{
this.items = items.ToList();
}
public abstract bool CheckAll(int value);
}
Inherited class without constraints
public class MyClass<TItem> : ClassBase<TItem>
{
public override bool CheckAll(int value)
{
bool result = true;
foreach(TItem item in this.items)
{
if (!item.Check(value)) // this doesn't work
{
result = false;
break;
}
}
return result;
}
}
I would like to know why aren't generic type constraints inheritable? Because if my inherited class inherits from base class and passes over its generic type which has a constraint on the base class it automatically means that generic type in inherited class should have the same constraint without explicitly defining it. Shouldn't it?
Am I doing something wrong, understanding it wrong or is it really that generic type constraint aren't inheritable? If the latter is true, why in the world is that?
A bit of additional explanation
Why do I think that generic type constraints defined on a class should be inherited or enforced on child classes? Let me give you some additional code to make it bit less obvious.
Suppose that we have all three classes as per above. Then we also have this class:
public class DanteItem
{
public string ConvertHellLevel(int value) { ... }
}
As we can see this class does not inherit from Item so it can't be used as a concrete class as ClassBase<DanteItem> (forget the fact that ClassBase is abstract for now. It could as well be a regular class). Since MyClass doesn't define any constraints for its generic type it seems perfectly valid to have MyClass<DanteItem>...
But. This is why I think generic type constraints should be inherited/enforced on inherited classes just as with member generic type constraints because if we look at definition of MyClass it says:
MyClass<T> : ClassBase<T>
When T is DanteItem we can see that it automatically can't be used with MyClass because it's inherited from ClassBase<T> and DanteItem doesn't fulfill its generic type constraint. I could say that **generic type on MyClass depends on ClassBase generic type constraints because otherwise MyClass could be instantiated with any type. But we know it can't be.
It would be of course different when I would have MyClass defined as:
public class MyClass<T> : ClassBase<Item>
in this case T doesn't have anything to to with base class' generic type so it's independent from it.
This is all a bit long explanation/reasoning. I could simply sum it up by:
If we don't provide generic type constraint on MyClass it implicitly implies that we can instantiate MyClass with any concrete type. But we know that's not possible, since MyClass is inherited from ClassBase and that one has a generic type constraint.
I hope this makes much more sense now.

ANOTHER UPDATE:
This question was the subject of my blog in July 2013. Thanks for the great question!
UPDATE:
I've given this some more thought and I think the problem is that you don't want inheritance at all. Rather, what you want is for all constraints that must be placed on a type parameter in order for that type parameter to be used as a type argument in another type to be automatically deduced and invisibly added to the declaration of the type parameter. Yes?
Some simplified examples:
class B<T> where T:C {}
class D<U> : B<U> {}
U is a type parameter that is used in a context where it must be C. Therefore in your opinion the compiler should deduce that and automatically put a constraint of C on U.
What about this?
class B<T, U> where T : X where U : Y {}
class D<V> : B<V, V> {}
Now V is a type parameter used in a context where it must be both X and Y. Therefore in your opinion the compiler should deduce that and automatically put a constraint of X and Y on V. Yes?
What about this?
class B<T> where T : C<T> {}
class C<U> : B<D<U>> where U : IY<C<U>> {}
class D<V> : C<B<V>> where V : IZ<V> {}
I just made that up, but I assure you that it is a perfectly legal type hierarchy. Please describe a clear and consistent rule that does not go into infinite loops for determining what all the constraints are on T, U and V. Don't forget to handle the cases where type parameters are known to be reference types and the interface constraints have covariance or contravariance annotations! Also, the algorithm must have the property that it gives exactly the same results no matter what order B, C and D appear in source code.
If inference of constraints is the feature you want then the compiler has to be able to handle cases like this and give clear error messages when it cannot.
What is so special about base types? Why not actually implement the feature all the way?
class B<T> where T : X {}
class D<V> { B<V> bv; }
V is a type parameter used in a context where it must be convertible to X; therefore the compiler should deduce this fact and put a constraint of X on V. Yes? Or no?
Why are fields special? What about this:
class B<T> { static public void M<U>(ref U u) where U : T {} }
class D<V> : B<int> { static V v; static public void Q() { M(ref v); } }
V is a type parameter used in a context where it can only be int. Therefore the C# compiler should deduce this fact and automatically put a constraint of int on V.
Yes? No?
You see where this is going? Where does it stop? In order to implement your desired feature properly the compiler must do whole-program analysis.
The compiler does not do this level of analysis because that is putting the cart before the horse. When you construct a generic, you are required to prove to the compiler that you've satisfied the constraint. It's not the compiler's job to figure out what you meant to say and work out what further set of constraints satisfy the original constraint.
For similar reasons, the compiler also does not attempt to automatically infer variance annotations in interfaces on your behalf. See my article on that subject for details.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/29/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-seven-why-do-we-need-a-syntax-at-all.aspx
Original answer:
I would like to know why aren't generic type constraints inheritable?
Only members are inherited. A constraint is not a member.
if my inherited class inherits from base class and passes over its generic type which has a constraint on the base class it automatically means that generic type in inherited class should have the same constraint without explicitly defining it. Shouldn't it?
You're just asserting how something should be, without providing any explanation of why it should be that way. Explain to us why you believe that the world should be that way; what are the benefits and what are the drawbacks and what are the costs?
Am I doing something wrong, understanding it wrong or is it really that generic type constraint aren't inheritable?
Generic constraints are not inherited.
If the latter is true, why in the world is that?
Features are "not implemented" by default. We don't have to provide a reason why a feature is not implemented! Every feature is not implemented until someone spends the money to implement it.
Now, I hasten to note that generic type constraints are inherited on methods. Methods are members, members are inherited, and the constraint is a part of the method (though not part of its signature). So the constraint comes along with the method when it is inherited. When you say:
class B<T>
{
public virtual void M<U>() where U : T {}
}
class D<V> : B<IEnumerable<V>>
{
public override void M<U>() {}
}
Then D<V>.M<U> inherits the constraint and substitutes IEnumerable<V> for T; thus the constraint is that U must be convertible to IEnumerable<V>. Note that C# does not allow you to restate the constraint. This is in my opinion a misfeature; I would like to be able to restate the constraint for clarity.
But D does not inherit any kind of constraint on T from B; I don't understand how it possibly could. M is a member of B, and is inherited by D along with its constraint. But T is not a member of B in the first place, so what is there to inherit?
I'm really not understanding at all what feature it is that you want here. Can you explain with more details?

Below is a scenario where the implicit nature of this behavior causes different behavior than expected:
I recognize that this scenario may seem extravagant in the amount of setup, but this is just one example of where this behavior might cause a problem. Software applications can be complicated, so even though this scenario may seem complicated, I wouldn't say that this can't happen.
In this example there is an Operator class that implements two similar interfaces: IMonitor and IProcessor. Both have a start method and an IsStarted property, but the behavior for each interface within the Operator class is separate. I.e. there is a _MonitorStarted variable and a _ProcessorStarted variable within the Operator class.
MyClass<T> derives from ClassBase<T>. ClassBase has a type constraint on T that it must implement the IProcessor interface, and according to the suggested behavior MyClass inherits that type constraint.
MyClass<T> has a Check method, which is built with the assumption that it can get the value of the IProcessor.IsStarted property from the inner IProcessor object.
Suppose someone changes the implementation of ClassBase to remove the type constraint of IProcessor on the generic parameter T and replace it with a type contraint of IMonitor. This code will silently work, but will produce different behavior. The reason is because the Check method in MyClass<T> is now calling the IMonitor.IsStarted property instead of the IProcessor.IsStarted property, even though the code for MyClass<T> hasn't changed at all.
public interface IMonitor
{
void Start();
bool IsStarted { get; }
}
public interface IProcessor
{
void Start();
bool IsStarted { get; }
}
public class Operator : IMonitor, IProcessor
{
#region IMonitor Members
bool _MonitorStarted;
void IMonitor.Start()
{
Console.WriteLine("IMonitor.Start");
_MonitorStarted = true;
}
bool IMonitor.IsStarted
{
get { return _MonitorStarted; }
}
#endregion
#region IProcessor Members
bool _ProcessorStarted;
void IProcessor.Start()
{
Console.WriteLine("IProcessor.Start");
_ProcessorStarted = true;
}
bool IProcessor.IsStarted
{
get { return _ProcessorStarted; }
}
#endregion
}
public class ClassBase<T>
where T : IProcessor
{
protected T Inner { get; private set; }
public ClassBase(T inner)
{
this.Inner = inner;
}
public void Start()
{
this.Inner.Start();
}
}
public class MyClass<T> : ClassBase<T>
//where T : IProcessor
{
public MyClass(T inner) : base(inner) { }
public bool Check()
{
// this code was written assuming that it is calling IProcessor.IsStarted
return this.Inner.IsStarted;
}
}
public static class Extensions
{
public static void StartMonitoring(this IMonitor monitor)
{
monitor.Start();
}
public static void StartProcessing(this IProcessor processor)
{
processor.Start();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var #operator = new Operator();
#operator.StartMonitoring();
var myClass = new MyClass<Operator>(#operator);
var result = myClass.Check();
// the value of result will be false if the type constraint on T in ClassBase<T> is where T : IProcessor
// the value of result will be true if the type constraint on T in ClassBase<T> is where T : IMonitor
}
}

I think you're confused becuase you're declaring you derived class with TItem as well.
If you think about it if you were using Q instead so.
public class MyClass<Q> : BaseClass<Q>
{
...
}
Then how is it to be determined that Q is of the type item?
You need to add the constraint to the derived classes Generic Type as well so
public class MyClass<Q> : BaseClass<Q> were Q : Item { ... }

Because the ClassBase has a constraint on his template (should by typeof Item), you have to add this constraint to MyClass too.
If you don't do this, you could create a new instance of MyClass, where the template isn't a type of Item. When creating the base class, it will fail.
[edit]
Hmm now a re-read your question, and I see your code does compile? Ok.
Well, im MyClass you don't know the basetype of this.items, so you can't call the Check method.
this.items is of the type IList, and in your class, TItem isn't specified, thats why the class doesn't understand the Check method.
Let me counter your question, why don't you want to add the constraint to your MyClass class? Given any other class type as template to this class, would result in an error. Why not prevent this errors by adding a constraint so it will fail compiletime.

What's the point of having constraints for type parameters in .NET (base class and interface constraints)

I'm working on a small class library at work, and it naturally involves using generics for this task. But there is this thing that I don't really understand with generics:
Why would I need to use generic type parameters, and then constrain the the type parameter to a specific base class or interface.
Here's an example to what I mean:
public class MyGenericClass<T> where T : SomeBaseClass
{
private T data;
}
And here's the implementation without generics
public class MyClass
{
private SomeBaseClass data;
}
Are these two definitions the same (if yes, then i don't see the advatage of using generics here)?
If not, what do we benefit from using generics here?

As with almost all uses of generics, the benefit comes to the consumer. Constraining the type gives you the same advantages that you get by strongly typing your parameter (or you can do other things like ensure that there's a public parameterless constructor or ensure that it's either a value or reference type) while still retaining the niceties of generics for the consumer of your class or function.
Using generics also, for example, allows you to obtain the actual type that was specified, if that's of any particular value.
This example is a little contrived, but look at this:
public class BaseClass
{
public void FunctionYouNeed();
}
public class Derived : BaseClass
{
public void OtherFunction();
}
public class MyGenericClass<T> where T: BaseClass
{
public MyGenericClass(T wrappedValue)
{
WrappedValue = wrappedValue;
}
public T WrappedValue { get; set; }
public void Foo()
{
WrappedValue.FunctionYouNeed();
}
}
...
var MyGenericClass bar = new MyGenericClass<Derived>(new Derived());
bar.Foo();
bar.WrappedValue.OtherFunction();

The difference is that the former defines the new class as a specific type; the latter simply defines a plain class with a field of that type.

It's all about type safety. Using generics you can return a concrete type (T) instead of some base type which defines the API you need in your generic class. Therefore, the caller of your method won't have to cast the result to the concrete type (which is an error-prone operation).

The main difference is in usage. In the first case, the usage can have:
MyGenericClass<SomeDerivedClass> Variable
Variable.data.SomeDerivedProperty = X
And so that when you use that class, you can still access anything from SomeDerivedClass without casting back to it.
The second example will not allow this.
MyClass.data = SomeDerivedClassInstance
MyClass.data.SomeDerivedProperty = X //Compile Error
((SomeDerivedClass)MyClass.data).SomeDerivedProperty = X //Ewwwww
You will have to cast back up to the SomeDerivedClass (which is unsafe) to use something specific to the derived class.

I don't think that there is a huge amount of difference except that the generic version is constraining your Class, whereas the second is just a constraint on a member of the class. If you added more members and methods to your first Class, you would have the same constraint in place.