Develop Reference

type casting classes mimiking enums

I use a 3rd party application for output. There are several int properties and I would like to handle the different properties' int values via enum.
Property1 could be 0,1,2
Property2 could be 0,1
Property3 could be 1,2
I think I should have enum inheritance which is not option in c#.
So I solved it by using classes (I'm using Tono Nam's answer from another topic to this end: https://stackoverflow.com/a/23430174/4273304).
public class MyEnum : IEquatable<MyEnum>
{
public static readonly MyEnum Undefined = new MyEnum(-1, "Undefined");
public int Value { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
protected MyEnum(int value, string name)
{
this.Value = value;
this.Name = name;
}
public bool Equals(MyEnum b)
{
return this.Name == b.Name && this.Value == b.Value;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return this.Name;
}
public static T Parse<T>(int value)
{
object obj;
Type t_type = typeof(T);
var fiList = t_type.GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static).Where(f => f.FieldType == typeof(T)).ToArray();
foreach(FieldInfo en in fiList)
{
object tmp = en.GetValue(null);
if (((MyEnum)tmp).Value == value)
return (T)tmp;
}
obj = MyEnum.Undefined;
return (T)obj;
}
}
public class MyEnumChild1 : MyEnum
{
public static readonly MyEnumChild1 A = new MyEnumChild1(0, "A");
public static readonly MyEnumChild1 B = new MyEnumChild1(1, "B");
private MyEnumChild1(int value, string name)
: base(value, name)
{
}
}
public class MyEnumChild2 : MyEnum
{
public static readonly MyEnumChild2 A = new MyEnumChild2(0, "A");
public static readonly MyEnumChild2 C = new MyEnumChild2(1, "C");
private MyEnumChild2(int value, string name)
: base(value, name)
{
}
}
public class MyEnumChild3 : MyEnum
{
public static readonly MyEnumChild3 D = new MyEnumChild3(0, "D");
public static readonly MyEnumChild3 E = new MyEnumChild3(1, "E");
private MyEnumChild3(int value, string name)
: base(value, name)
{
}
}
This solution serves my purposes, but I dont know how to cast an int to MyEnumChild1.
I created a parser method:
MyEnumChild1 MEC1 = MyEnum.Parse <MyEnumChild1>(1);
It seems to work fine, MEC1 is MyEnumChild1.B now, but I'm not sure of it.
How safe do you think my parser method is? Are there any mistakes in this code or can I use it safely?
Do you know any better, elegant or simpler solution for the cast?

First, your Parse method should put a constraint on T:
public static T Parse<T>(int value) where T : MyEnum
Second, you can make it protected instead and implement a casting operator in each of the derived enums this way:
public static explicit operator MyEnumChild1(int value)
{
return Parse<MyEnumChild1>(value);
}
And use it in a more classic way:
MyEnumChild1 mec1 = (MyEnumChild1)1

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

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

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

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

Discriminated union in C#

[Note: This question had the original title "C (ish) style union in C#"
but as Jeff's comment informed me, apparently this structure is called a 'discriminated union']
Excuse the verbosity of this question.
There are a couple of similar sounding questions to mine already in SO but they seem to concentrate on the memory saving benefits of the union or using it for interop.
Here is an example of such a question.
My desire to have a union type thing is somewhat different.
I am writing some code at the moment which generates objects that look a bit like this
public class ValueWrapper
{
public DateTime ValueCreationDate;
// ... other meta data about the value
public object ValueA;
public object ValueB;
}
Pretty complicated stuff I think you will agree. The thing is that ValueA can only be of a few certain types (let's say string, int and Foo (which is a class) and ValueB can be another small set of types. I don't like treating these values as objects (I want the warm snugly feeling of coding with a bit of type safety).
So I thought about writing a trivial little wrapper class to express the fact that ValueA logically is a reference to a particular type. I called the class Union because what I am trying to achieve reminded me of the union concept in C.
public class Union<A, B, C>
{
private readonly Type type;
public readonly A a;
public readonly B b;
public readonly C c;
public A A{get {return a;}}
public B B{get {return b;}}
public C C{get {return c;}}
public Union(A a)
{
type = typeof(A);
this.a = a;
}
public Union(B b)
{
type = typeof(B);
this.b = b;
}
public Union(C c)
{
type = typeof(C);
this.c = c;
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns true if the union contains a value of type T
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>The type of T must exactly match the type</remarks>
public bool Is<T>()
{
return typeof(T) == type;
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns the union value cast to the given type.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>If the type of T does not exactly match either X or Y, then the value <c>default(T)</c> is returned.</remarks>
public T As<T>()
{
if(Is<A>())
{
return (T)(object)a; // Is this boxing and unboxing unavoidable if I want the union to hold value types and reference types?
//return (T)x; // This will not compile: Error = "Cannot cast expression of type 'X' to 'T'."
}
if(Is<B>())
{
return (T)(object)b;
}
if(Is<C>())
{
return (T)(object)c;
}
return default(T);
}
}
Using this class ValueWrapper now looks like this
public class ValueWrapper2
{
public DateTime ValueCreationDate;
public Union<int, string, Foo> ValueA;
public Union<double, Bar, Foo> ValueB;
}
which is something like what I wanted to achieve but I am missing one fairly crucial element - that is compiler enforced type checking when calling the Is and As functions as the following code demonstrates
public void DoSomething()
{
if(ValueA.Is<string>())
{
var s = ValueA.As<string>();
// .... do somethng
}
if(ValueA.Is<char>()) // I would really like this to be a compile error
{
char c = ValueA.As<char>();
}
}
IMO It is not valid to ask ValueA if it is a char since its definition clearly says it is not - this is a programming error and I would like the compiler to pick up on this. [Also if I could get this correct then (hopefully) I would get intellisense too - which would be a boon.]
In order to achieve this I would want to tell the compiler that the type T can be one of A, B or C
public bool Is<T>() where T : A
or T : B // Yes I know this is not legal!
or T : C
{
return typeof(T) == type;
}
Does anyone have any idea if what I want to achieve is possible? Or am I just plain stupid for writing this class in the first place?

I don't really like the type-checking and type-casting solutions provided above, so here's 100% type-safe union which will throw compilation errors if you attempt to use the wrong datatype:
using System;
namespace Juliet
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Union3<int, char, string>[] unions = new Union3<int,char,string>[]
{
new Union3<int, char, string>.Case1(5),
new Union3<int, char, string>.Case2('x'),
new Union3<int, char, string>.Case3("Juliet")
};
foreach (Union3<int, char, string> union in unions)
{
string value = union.Match(
num => num.ToString(),
character => new string(new char[] { character }),
word => word);
Console.WriteLine("Matched union with value '{0}'", value);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public abstract class Union3<A, B, C>
{
public abstract T Match<T>(Func<A, T> f, Func<B, T> g, Func<C, T> h);
// private ctor ensures no external classes can inherit
private Union3() { }
public sealed class Case1 : Union3<A, B, C>
{
public readonly A Item;
public Case1(A item) : base() { this.Item = item; }
public override T Match<T>(Func<A, T> f, Func<B, T> g, Func<C, T> h)
{
return f(Item);
}
}
public sealed class Case2 : Union3<A, B, C>
{
public readonly B Item;
public Case2(B item) { this.Item = item; }
public override T Match<T>(Func<A, T> f, Func<B, T> g, Func<C, T> h)
{
return g(Item);
}
}
public sealed class Case3 : Union3<A, B, C>
{
public readonly C Item;
public Case3(C item) { this.Item = item; }
public override T Match<T>(Func<A, T> f, Func<B, T> g, Func<C, T> h)
{
return h(Item);
}
}
}
}

I like the direction of the accepted solution but it doesn't scale well for unions of more than three items (e.g. a union of 9 items would require 9 class definitions).
Here is another approach that is also 100% type-safe at compile-time, but that is easy to grow to large unions.
public class UnionBase<A>
{
dynamic value;
public UnionBase(A a) { value = a; }
protected UnionBase(object x) { value = x; }
protected T InternalMatch<T>(params Delegate[] ds)
{
var vt = value.GetType();
foreach (var d in ds)
{
var mi = d.Method;
// These are always true if InternalMatch is used correctly.
Debug.Assert(mi.GetParameters().Length == 1);
Debug.Assert(typeof(T).IsAssignableFrom(mi.ReturnType));
var pt = mi.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType;
if (pt.IsAssignableFrom(vt))
return (T)mi.Invoke(null, new object[] { value });
}
throw new Exception("No appropriate matching function was provided");
}
public T Match<T>(Func<A, T> fa) { return InternalMatch<T>(fa); }
}
public class Union<A, B> : UnionBase<A>
{
public Union(A a) : base(a) { }
public Union(B b) : base(b) { }
protected Union(object x) : base(x) { }
public T Match<T>(Func<A, T> fa, Func<B, T> fb) { return InternalMatch<T>(fa, fb); }
}
public class Union<A, B, C> : Union<A, B>
{
public Union(A a) : base(a) { }
public Union(B b) : base(b) { }
public Union(C c) : base(c) { }
protected Union(object x) : base(x) { }
public T Match<T>(Func<A, T> fa, Func<B, T> fb, Func<C, T> fc) { return InternalMatch<T>(fa, fb, fc); }
}
public class Union<A, B, C, D> : Union<A, B, C>
{
public Union(A a) : base(a) { }
public Union(B b) : base(b) { }
public Union(C c) : base(c) { }
public Union(D d) : base(d) { }
protected Union(object x) : base(x) { }
public T Match<T>(Func<A, T> fa, Func<B, T> fb, Func<C, T> fc, Func<D, T> fd) { return InternalMatch<T>(fa, fb, fc, fd); }
}
public class Union<A, B, C, D, E> : Union<A, B, C, D>
{
public Union(A a) : base(a) { }
public Union(B b) : base(b) { }
public Union(C c) : base(c) { }
public Union(D d) : base(d) { }
public Union(E e) : base(e) { }
protected Union(object x) : base(x) { }
public T Match<T>(Func<A, T> fa, Func<B, T> fb, Func<C, T> fc, Func<D, T> fd, Func<E, T> fe) { return InternalMatch<T>(fa, fb, fc, fd, fe); }
}
public class DiscriminatedUnionTest : IExample
{
public Union<int, bool, string, int[]> MakeUnion(int n)
{
return new Union<int, bool, string, int[]>(n);
}
public Union<int, bool, string, int[]> MakeUnion(bool b)
{
return new Union<int, bool, string, int[]>(b);
}
public Union<int, bool, string, int[]> MakeUnion(string s)
{
return new Union<int, bool, string, int[]>(s);
}
public Union<int, bool, string, int[]> MakeUnion(params int[] xs)
{
return new Union<int, bool, string, int[]>(xs);
}
public void Print(Union<int, bool, string, int[]> union)
{
var text = union.Match(
n => "This is an int " + n.ToString(),
b => "This is a boolean " + b.ToString(),
s => "This is a string" + s,
xs => "This is an array of ints " + String.Join(", ", xs));
Console.WriteLine(text);
}
public void Run()
{
Print(MakeUnion(1));
Print(MakeUnion(true));
Print(MakeUnion("forty-two"));
Print(MakeUnion(0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8));
}
}

I wrote some blog posts on this subject that might be useful:
Union Types in C#
Implementing Tic-Tac-Toe Using State Classes
Let's say you have a shopping cart scenario with three states: "Empty", "Active" and "Paid", each with different behavior.
You create have a ICartState interface that all states have in common (and it could just be an empty marker interface)
You create three classes that implement that interface. (The classes do not have to be in an inheritance relationship)
The interface contains a "fold" method, whereby you pass a lambda in for each state or case that you need to handle.
You could use the F# runtime from C# but as a lighter weight alternative, I have written a little T4 template for generating code like this.
Here's the interface:
partial interface ICartState
{
ICartState Transition(
Func<CartStateEmpty, ICartState> cartStateEmpty,
Func<CartStateActive, ICartState> cartStateActive,
Func<CartStatePaid, ICartState> cartStatePaid
);
}
And here's the implementation:
class CartStateEmpty : ICartState
{
ICartState ICartState.Transition(
Func<CartStateEmpty, ICartState> cartStateEmpty,
Func<CartStateActive, ICartState> cartStateActive,
Func<CartStatePaid, ICartState> cartStatePaid
)
{
// I'm the empty state, so invoke cartStateEmpty
return cartStateEmpty(this);
}
}
class CartStateActive : ICartState
{
ICartState ICartState.Transition(
Func<CartStateEmpty, ICartState> cartStateEmpty,
Func<CartStateActive, ICartState> cartStateActive,
Func<CartStatePaid, ICartState> cartStatePaid
)
{
// I'm the active state, so invoke cartStateActive
return cartStateActive(this);
}
}
class CartStatePaid : ICartState
{
ICartState ICartState.Transition(
Func<CartStateEmpty, ICartState> cartStateEmpty,
Func<CartStateActive, ICartState> cartStateActive,
Func<CartStatePaid, ICartState> cartStatePaid
)
{
// I'm the paid state, so invoke cartStatePaid
return cartStatePaid(this);
}
}
Now let's say you extend the CartStateEmpty and CartStateActive with an AddItem method which is not implemented by CartStatePaid.
And also let's say that CartStateActive has a Pay method that the other states dont have.
Then here's some code that shows it in use -- adding two items and then paying for the cart:
public ICartState AddProduct(ICartState currentState, Product product)
{
return currentState.Transition(
cartStateEmpty => cartStateEmpty.AddItem(product),
cartStateActive => cartStateActive.AddItem(product),
cartStatePaid => cartStatePaid // not allowed in this case
);
}
public void Example()
{
var currentState = new CartStateEmpty() as ICartState;
//add some products
currentState = AddProduct(currentState, Product.ProductX);
currentState = AddProduct(currentState, Product.ProductY);
//pay
const decimal paidAmount = 12.34m;
currentState = currentState.Transition(
cartStateEmpty => cartStateEmpty, // not allowed in this case
cartStateActive => cartStateActive.Pay(paidAmount),
cartStatePaid => cartStatePaid // not allowed in this case
);
}
Note that this code is completely typesafe -- no casting or conditionals anywhere, and compiler errors if you try to pay for an empty cart, say.

I have written a library for doing this at https://github.com/mcintyre321/OneOf
Install-Package OneOf
It has the generic types in it for doing DUs e.g. OneOf<T0, T1> all the way to
OneOf<T0, ..., T9>. Each of those has a .Match, and a .Switch statement which you can use for compiler safe typed behaviour, e.g.:
```
OneOf<string, ColorName, Color> backgroundColor = getBackground();
Color c = backgroundColor.Match(
str => CssHelper.GetColorFromString(str),
name => new Color(name),
col => col
);
```

I am not sure I fully understand your goal. In C, a union is a structure that uses the same memory locations for more than one field. For example:
typedef union
{
float real;
int scalar;
} floatOrScalar;
The floatOrScalar union could be used as a float, or an int, but they both consume the same memory space. Changing one changes the other. You can achieve the same thing with a struct in C#:
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit)]
struct FloatOrScalar
{
[FieldOffset(0)]
public float Real;
[FieldOffset(0)]
public int Scalar;
}
The above structure uses 32bits total, rather than 64bits. This is only possible with a struct. Your example above is a class, and given the nature of the CLR, makes no guarantee about memory efficiency. If you change a Union<A, B, C> from one type to another, you are not necessarily reusing memory...most likely, you are allocating a new type on the heap and dropping a different pointer in the backing object field. Contrary to a real union, your approach may actually cause more heap thrashing than you would otherwise get if you did not use your Union type.

char foo = 'B';
bool bar = foo is int;
This results in a warning, not an error. If you're looking for your Is and As functions to be analogs for the C# operators, then you shouldn't be restricting them in that way anyhow.

If you allow multiple types, you cannot achieve type safety (unless the types are related).
You can't and won't achieve any kind of type safety, you could only achieve byte-value-safety using FieldOffset.
It would make much more sense to have a generic ValueWrapper<T1, T2> with T1 ValueA and T2 ValueB, ...
P.S.: when talking about type-safety I mean compile-time type-safety.
If you need a code wrapper (performing bussiness logic on modifications you can use something along the lines of:
public class Wrapper
{
public ValueHolder<int> v1 = 5;
public ValueHolder<byte> v2 = 8;
}
public struct ValueHolder<T>
where T : struct
{
private T value;
public ValueHolder(T value) { this.value = value; }
public static implicit operator T(ValueHolder<T> valueHolder) { return valueHolder.value; }
public static implicit operator ValueHolder<T>(T value) { return new ValueHolder<T>(value); }
}
For an easy way out you could use (it has performance issues, but it is very simple):
public class Wrapper
{
private object v1;
private object v2;
public T GetValue1<T>() { if (v1.GetType() != typeof(T)) throw new InvalidCastException(); return (T)v1; }
public void SetValue1<T>(T value) { v1 = value; }
public T GetValue2<T>() { if (v2.GetType() != typeof(T)) throw new InvalidCastException(); return (T)v2; }
public void SetValue2<T>(T value) { v2 = value; }
}
//usage:
Wrapper wrapper = new Wrapper();
wrapper.SetValue1("aaaa");
wrapper.SetValue2(456);
string s = wrapper.GetValue1<string>();
DateTime dt = wrapper.GetValue1<DateTime>();//InvalidCastException

Here is my attempt. It does compile time checking of types, using generic type constraints.
class Union {
public interface AllowedType<T> { };
internal object val;
internal System.Type type;
}
static class UnionEx {
public static T As<U,T>(this U x) where U : Union, Union.AllowedType<T> {
return x.type == typeof(T) ?(T)x.val : default(T);
}
public static void Set<U,T>(this U x, T newval) where U : Union, Union.AllowedType<T> {
x.val = newval;
x.type = typeof(T);
}
public static bool Is<U,T>(this U x) where U : Union, Union.AllowedType<T> {
return x.type == typeof(T);
}
}
class MyType : Union, Union.AllowedType<int>, Union.AllowedType<string> {}
class TestIt
{
static void Main()
{
MyType bla = new MyType();
bla.Set(234);
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.As<MyType,int>());
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.Is<MyType,string>());
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.Is<MyType,int>());
bla.Set("test");
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.As<MyType,string>());
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.Is<MyType,string>());
System.Console.WriteLine(bla.Is<MyType,int>());
// compile time errors!
// bla.Set('a');
// bla.Is<MyType,char>()
}
}
It could use some prettying-up. Especially, I couldn't figure out how to get rid of the type parameters to As/Is/Set (isn't there a way to specify one type parameter and let C# figure the other one?)

So I've hit this same problem many times, and I just came up with a solution that gets the syntax I want (at the expense of some ugliness in the implementation of the Union type.)
To recap: we want this sort of usage at the call site.
Union<int, string> u;
u = 1492;
int yearColumbusDiscoveredAmerica = u;
u = "hello world";
string traditionalGreeting = u;
var answers = new SortedList<string, Union<int, string, DateTime>>();
answers["life, the universe, and everything"] = 42;
answers["D-Day"] = new DateTime(1944, 6, 6);
answers["C#"] = "is awesome";
We want the following examples to fail to compile, however, so that we get a modicum of type safety.
DateTime dateTimeColumbusDiscoveredAmerica = u;
Foo fooInstance = u;
For extra credit, let's also not take up more space than absolutely needed.
With all that said, here's my implementation for two generic type parameters. The implementation for three, four, and so on type parameters is straight-forward.
public abstract class Union<T1, T2>
{
public abstract int TypeSlot
{
get;
}
public virtual T1 AsT1()
{
throw new TypeAccessException(string.Format(
"Cannot treat this instance as a {0} instance.", typeof(T1).Name));
}
public virtual T2 AsT2()
{
throw new TypeAccessException(string.Format(
"Cannot treat this instance as a {0} instance.", typeof(T2).Name));
}
public static implicit operator Union<T1, T2>(T1 data)
{
return new FromT1(data);
}
public static implicit operator Union<T1, T2>(T2 data)
{
return new FromT2(data);
}
public static implicit operator Union<T1, T2>(Tuple<T1, T2> data)
{
return new FromTuple(data);
}
public static implicit operator T1(Union<T1, T2> source)
{
return source.AsT1();
}
public static implicit operator T2(Union<T1, T2> source)
{
return source.AsT2();
}
private class FromT1 : Union<T1, T2>
{
private readonly T1 data;
public FromT1(T1 data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public override int TypeSlot
{
get { return 1; }
}
public override T1 AsT1()
{
return this.data;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return this.data.ToString();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.data.GetHashCode();
}
}
private class FromT2 : Union<T1, T2>
{
private readonly T2 data;
public FromT2(T2 data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public override int TypeSlot
{
get { return 2; }
}
public override T2 AsT2()
{
return this.data;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return this.data.ToString();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.data.GetHashCode();
}
}
private class FromTuple : Union<T1, T2>
{
private readonly Tuple<T1, T2> data;
public FromTuple(Tuple<T1, T2> data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public override int TypeSlot
{
get { return 0; }
}
public override T1 AsT1()
{
return this.data.Item1;
}
public override T2 AsT2()
{
return this.data.Item2;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return this.data.ToString();
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.data.GetHashCode();
}
}
}

And my attempt on minimal yet extensible solution using nesting of Union/Either type.
Also usage of default parameters in Match method naturally enables "Either X Or Default" scenario.
using System;
using System.Reflection;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace Playground
{
[TestFixture]
public class EitherTests
{
[Test]
public void Test_Either_of_Property_or_FieldInfo()
{
var some = new Some(false);
var field = some.GetType().GetField("X");
var property = some.GetType().GetProperty("Y");
Assert.NotNull(field);
Assert.NotNull(property);
var info = Either<PropertyInfo, FieldInfo>.Of(field);
var infoType = info.Match(p => p.PropertyType, f => f.FieldType);
Assert.That(infoType, Is.EqualTo(typeof(bool)));
}
[Test]
public void Either_of_three_cases_using_nesting()
{
var some = new Some(false);
var field = some.GetType().GetField("X");
var parameter = some.GetType().GetConstructors()[0].GetParameters()[0];
Assert.NotNull(field);
Assert.NotNull(parameter);
var info = Either<ParameterInfo, Either<PropertyInfo, FieldInfo>>.Of(parameter);
var name = info.Match(_ => _.Name, _ => _.Name, _ => _.Name);
Assert.That(name, Is.EqualTo("a"));
}
public class Some
{
public bool X;
public string Y { get; set; }
public Some(bool a)
{
X = a;
}
}
}
public static class Either
{
public static T Match<A, B, C, T>(
this Either<A, Either<B, C>> source,
Func<A, T> a = null, Func<B, T> b = null, Func<C, T> c = null)
{
return source.Match(a, bc => bc.Match(b, c));
}
}
public abstract class Either<A, B>
{
public static Either<A, B> Of(A a)
{
return new CaseA(a);
}
public static Either<A, B> Of(B b)
{
return new CaseB(b);
}
public abstract T Match<T>(Func<A, T> a = null, Func<B, T> b = null);
private sealed class CaseA : Either<A, B>
{
private readonly A _item;
public CaseA(A item) { _item = item; }
public override T Match<T>(Func<A, T> a = null, Func<B, T> b = null)
{
return a == null ? default(T) : a(_item);
}
}
private sealed class CaseB : Either<A, B>
{
private readonly B _item;
public CaseB(B item) { _item = item; }
public override T Match<T>(Func<A, T> a = null, Func<B, T> b = null)
{
return b == null ? default(T) : b(_item);
}
}
}
}

You could throw exceptions once there's an attempt to access variables that haven't been initialized, ie if it's created with an A parameter and later on there's an attempt to access B or C, it could throw, say, UnsupportedOperationException. You'd need a getter to make it work though.

The C# Language Design Team discussed discriminated unions in January 2017 https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-01-10.md#discriminated-unions-via-closed-types
You can vote for the feature request at https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/113

You can export a pseudo-pattern matching function, like I use for the Either type in my Sasa library. There's currently runtime overhead, but I eventually plan to add a CIL analysis to inline all the delegates into a true case statement.

It's not possible to do with exactly the syntax you've used but with a bit more verbosity and copy/paste it's easy to make overload resolution do the job for you:
// this code is ok
var u = new Union("");
if (u.Value(Is.OfType()))
{
u.Value(Get.ForType());
}
// and this one will not compile
if (u.Value(Is.OfType()))
{
u.Value(Get.ForType());
}
By now it should be pretty obvious how to implement it:
public class Union
{
private readonly Type type;
public readonly A a;
public readonly B b;
public readonly C c;
public Union(A a)
{
type = typeof(A);
this.a = a;
}
public Union(B b)
{
type = typeof(B);
this.b = b;
}
public Union(C c)
{
type = typeof(C);
this.c = c;
}
public bool Value(TypeTestSelector _)
{
return typeof(A) == type;
}
public bool Value(TypeTestSelector _)
{
return typeof(B) == type;
}
public bool Value(TypeTestSelector _)
{
return typeof(C) == type;
}
public A Value(GetValueTypeSelector _)
{
return a;
}
public B Value(GetValueTypeSelector _)
{
return b;
}
public C Value(GetValueTypeSelector _)
{
return c;
}
}
public static class Is
{
public static TypeTestSelector OfType()
{
return null;
}
}
public class TypeTestSelector
{
}
public static class Get
{
public static GetValueTypeSelector ForType()
{
return null;
}
}
public class GetValueTypeSelector
{
}
There are no checks for extracting the value of the wrong type, e.g.:
var u = Union(10);
string s = u.Value(Get.ForType());
So you might consider adding necessary checks and throw exceptions in such cases.

I am currently trying to create a Julia Runtime in .NET. Julia has types like Union{Int, String}... Etc. I am currently trying to simulate this .NET (without doing weird IL that would not be able to be called from c#).
Here is a compile time implementation of a union of structures. I will be creating more unions for object unions, and cross object and struct unions (this will be the most complex case).
public struct Union<T1,T2> where T1 : struct where T2 : struct{
private byte type;
[FieldOffset(1)] private T1 a1;
[FieldOffset(1)] private T2 a2;
public T1 A1 {
get => a1;
set {
a1 = value;
type = 1;
}
}
public T2 A2 {
get => a2;
set {
a2 = value;
type = 2;
}
}
public Union(int _ = 0) {
type = 0;
a1 = default;
a2 = default;
}
public Union(T1 a) : this() => A1 = a;
public Union(T2 a) : this() => A2 = a;
public bool HasValue => type < 1 || type > 2;
public bool IsNull => !HasValue;
public bool IsT1 => type == 1;
public bool IsT2 => type == 2;
public Type GetType() {
switch (type) {
case 1: return typeof(T1);
case 2: return typeof(T2);
default: return null;
}
}
}
You can use the above like the following:
Union<int, long> myUnion(5); \\Set int inside
myUnion.a2 = 5;
Type theTypeInside = myUnion.GetType(); //long
myUnion.a1 = 5;
theTypeInside = myUnion.GetType(); //int
I will also be creating dynamic union generators or aligned unions for the cross object and struct union.
Take a look at:Generated Struct Union Output to see the current compile time unions I am using.
If you want to create a union of any size take a look at Generator for Struct Unions
If anyone has any improvements for the above let me know! Implementing julia into .NET is an extraordinarily hard task!

I use own of Union Type.
Consider an example to make it clearer.
Imagine we have Contact class:
public class Contact
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public string PostalAdrress { get; set; }
}
These are all defined as simple strings, but really are they just strings?
Of course not. The Name can consist of First Name and Last Name. Or is an Email just a set of symbols? I know that at least it should contain # and it is necessarily.
Let's improve us domain model
public class PersonalName
{
public PersonalName(string firstName, string lastName) { ... }
public string Name() { return _fistName + " " _lastName; }
}
public class EmailAddress
{
public EmailAddress(string email) { ... }
}
public class PostalAdrress
{
public PostalAdrress(string address, string city, int zip) { ... }
}
In this classes will be validations during creating and we will eventually have valid models. Consturctor in PersonaName class require FirstName and LastName at the same time. This means that after the creation, it can not have invalid state.
And contact class respectively
public class Contact
{
public PersonalName Name { get; set; }
public EmailAdress EmailAddress { get; set; }
public PostalAddress PostalAddress { get; set; }
}
In this case we have same problem, object of Contact class may be in invalid state. I mean it may have EmailAddress but haven't Name
var contact = new Contact { EmailAddress = new EmailAddress("foo#bar.com") };
Let's fix it and create Contact class with constructor which requires PersonalName, EmailAddress and PostalAddress:
public class Contact
{
public Contact(
PersonalName personalName,
EmailAddress emailAddress,
PostalAddress postalAddress
)
{
...
}
}
But here we have another problem. What if Person have only EmailAdress and haven't PostalAddress?
If we think about it there we realize that there are three possibilities of valid state of Contact class object:
A contact only has an email address
A contact only has a postal address
A contact has both an email address and a postal address
Let's write out domain models. For the beginning we will create Contact Info class which state will be corresponding with above cases.
public class ContactInfo
{
public ContactInfo(EmailAddress emailAddress) { ... }
public ContactInfo(PostalAddress postalAddress) { ... }
public ContactInfo(Tuple<EmailAddress,PostalAddress> emailAndPostalAddress) { ... }
}
And Contact class:
public class Contact
{
public Contact(
PersonalName personalName,
ContactInfo contactInfo
)
{
...
}
}
Let's try use it:
var contact = new Contact(
new PersonalName("James", "Bond"),
new ContactInfo(
new EmailAddress("agent#007.com")
)
);
Console.WriteLine(contact.PersonalName()); // James Bond
Console.WriteLine(contact.ContactInfo().???) // here we have problem, because ContactInfo have three possible state and if we want print it we would write `if` cases
Let's add Match method in ContactInfo class
public class ContactInfo
{
// constructor
public TResult Match<TResult>(
Func<EmailAddress,TResult> f1,
Func<PostalAddress,TResult> f2,
Func<Tuple<EmailAddress,PostalAddress>> f3
)
{
if (_emailAddress != null)
{
return f1(_emailAddress);
}
else if(_postalAddress != null)
{
...
}
...
}
}
In the match method, we can write this code, because the state of the contact class is controlled with constructors and it may have only one of the possible states.
Let's create an auxiliary class, so that each time do not write as many code.
public abstract class Union<T1,T2,T3>
where T1 : class
where T2 : class
where T3 : class
{
private readonly T1 _t1;
private readonly T2 _t2;
private readonly T3 _t3;
public Union(T1 t1) { _t1 = t1; }
public Union(T2 t2) { _t2 = t2; }
public Union(T3 t3) { _t3 = t3; }
public TResult Match<TResult>(
Func<T1, TResult> f1,
Func<T2, TResult> f2,
Func<T3, TResult> f3
)
{
if (_t1 != null)
{
return f1(_t1);
}
else if (_t2 != null)
{
return f2(_t2);
}
else if (_t3 != null)
{
return f3(_t3);
}
throw new Exception("can't match");
}
}
We can have such a class in advance for several types, as is done with delegates Func, Action. 4-6 generic type parameters will be in full for Union class.
Let's rewrite ContactInfo class:
public sealed class ContactInfo : Union<
EmailAddress,
PostalAddress,
Tuple<EmaiAddress,PostalAddress>
>
{
public Contact(EmailAddress emailAddress) : base(emailAddress) { }
public Contact(PostalAddress postalAddress) : base(postalAddress) { }
public Contact(Tuple<EmaiAddress, PostalAddress> emailAndPostalAddress) : base(emailAndPostalAddress) { }
}
Here the compiler will ask override for at least one constructor. If we forget to override the rest of the constructors we can't create object of ContactInfo class with another state. This will protect us from runtime exceptions during Matching.
var contact = new Contact(
new PersonalName("James", "Bond"),
new ContactInfo(
new EmailAddress("agent#007.com")
)
);
Console.WriteLine(contact.PersonalName()); // James Bond
Console
.WriteLine(
contact
.ContactInfo()
.Match(
(emailAddress) => emailAddress.Address,
(postalAddress) => postalAddress.City + " " postalAddress.Zip.ToString(),
(emailAndPostalAddress) => emailAndPostalAddress.Item1.Name + emailAndPostalAddress.Item2.City + " " emailAndPostalAddress.Item2.Zip.ToString()
)
);
That's all.
I hope you enjoyed.
Example taken from the site F# for fun and profit

Looking for a syntactic shortcut for accessing dictionaries

I have an abstract base class that holds a Dictionary. I'd like inherited classes to be able to access the dictionary fields using a convenient syntax. Currently I have lots of code like this:
string temp;
int val;
if (this.Fields.TryGetValue("Key", out temp)) {
if (int.TryParse(temp, out val)) {
// do something with val...
}
}
Obviously I can wrap this in utility functions but I'd like to have a cool, convenient syntax for accessing the dictionary fields where I can simply say something like:
int result = #Key;
Is there any way to do something like this in C# (3.5)?

You could add an indexer to your class and pass the indexer's parameter through to the dictionary.
class Foo
{
// Initialized elsewhere
Dictionary<String,String> Fields;
public Int32 this[String key]
{
String temp = null;
Int32 val = 0;
if (this.Fields.TryGetValue(key, out temp)) {
Int32.TryParse(temp, out val);
}
return val;
}
}
Then given an instance of Foo called foo you could do this:
Int32 value = foo["Key"];

How about an extension method?
public static int TryGetInt(this IDictionary dict, string key)
{
int val;
if (dict.Contains(key))
{
if (int.TryParse((string)dict[key], out val))
return val;
else
throw new Exception("Value is not a valid integer.");
}
throw new Exception("Key not found.");
}

The closer you can get to a nice syntax is using extension methods:
public static class MyDictExtensionMethods
{
public static T Get<T>(this Dictionary<string, object> dict, string key)
where T: IConvertible
{
object tmp;
if (!dict.TryGetValue(key, out tmp))
return default(T);
try {
return (T) Convert.ChangeType(tmp, typeof(T));
} catch (Exception) {
return default(T);
}
}
}
Usage:
int val = this.Fields.Get<int>("Key");
You can then create additional overloads for specific types (i.e.: types that does not implement IConvertible and need specific conversion).

Assuming that it's not always an int you want (if it is, then why isn't it a Dictionary<string, int>?) - I think something like this works and gets pretty close:
int i = #int["Key"];
string s = #string["Key"];
object o = #object["Key"];
This combines the fact that identifiers can be prefixed with # (it's usually optional, but it's required if your identifier is a reserved keyword, like int or string) with the default indexed parameter from Andrew Hare's answer.
It does require another class to be used to get the indexing - though if you wanted to use parens instead of square brackets for the key name, you could use methods instead:
int i = #value<int>("Key");
Implementation would be something like:
class DerivedClass : BaseClass {
void Main() {
int i = #int["Key"];
}
}
abstract class BaseClass {
private Dictionary<string, string> D { get; set; }
protected Indexer<int> #int = new Indexer<int>(s => int.Parse(s), this);
protected Indexer<string> #string = new Indexer<string>(s => s, this);
protected Indexer<object> #object = new Indexer<object>(s => (object)s, this);
protected class Indexer<T> {
public T this[string key] {
get { return this.Convert(this.BaseClass.D[key]); }
}
private T Convert(string value) { get; set; }
private BaseClass { get; set; }
public Indexer(Func<T, string> c, BaseClass b) {
this.Convert = c;
this.BaseClass = b;
}
}
}
Or, the method route:
class DerivedClass : BaseClass {
void Main() {
int i = #value<int>("key");
}
}
abstract class BaseClass {
private Dictionary<string, string> D { get; set; }
protected T #value<T>(string key) {
string s = this.D[s];
return Convert.ChangeType(s, typeof(T));
}
}
After reading through the language spec - if you're not tied to #, _ is a legal identifier. Combine that with indexers and you get:
int i = _["key"];

ambiguous/conflicting constructors in generic class

I've got a generic class:
public class BaseFieldValue<T>
{
public BaseFieldValue()
{
//...
}
public BaseFieldValue(string value)
{
//...
}
public BaseFieldValue(T value)
{
//...
}
}
Fine. Except...
var myValue = new BaseFieldValue<string>("hello");
Oops. The undesired constructor is called. There's a number of ways to address the problem. What's the best solution?

I would probably make one of the overloads into a factory method:
public static BaseFieldValue<T> Parse(string value){}

You could do the following:
public class BaseFieldValue<T>
{
public struct Special
{
internal string m_value;
public Special(string value)
{
m_value = value;
}
}
public BaseFieldValue()
{
//...
}
public BaseFieldValue(Special value)
{
//...
}
public BaseFieldValue(T value)
{
//...
}
}
... or, you could add an extra ignored boolean parameter to your special constructor, just to disambiguate it.

Couldn't make Type Contraints do what I wanted, so my workaround is removing the ambiguous constructor while retaining the special case for string:
public class BaseFieldValue<T>
{
public BaseFieldValue()
{
//...
}
public BaseFieldValue(T value)
{
//however many things you need to test for here
if (typeof(T) == typeof(string))
{
SpecialBaseFieldValue(value.ToString());
}
else
{
//everything else
}
//...
}
private void SpecialBaseFieldValue(string value)
{
//...
}
}

A nasty hack, but probably no worse than any of the alternatives:
public class BaseFieldValue<T>
{
public BaseFieldValue()
{
// ...
}
public BaseFieldValue(StringWrapper value)
{
// ...
}
public BaseFieldValue(T value)
{
// ...
}
public class StringWrapper
{
private string _value;
public static implicit operator string(StringWrapper sw)
{
return sw._value;
}
public static implicit operator StringWrapper(string s)
{
return new StringWrapper { _value = s };
}
}
}
And now it can be used as you need:
// call the generic constructor
var myValue = new BaseFieldValue<string>("hello");
// call the string constructor
var myValue = new BaseFieldValue<int>("hello");

May be you can try thi:
var myValue = new BaseFieldValue<Object>("hello" as Object);