When I call a function and replace one of the parameters with dynamic, the compiler inferres the function result to be dynamic. I don't understand why this happens.
Example: the inferred type for a is dynamic, so this code compiles, but of course fails at runtime with RuntimeBinderException:
dynamic b = "";
var a = MethodWithoutOverloads("", b);
a.DoesNotExist();
...
public string MethodWithoutOverloads(string a, string b) { ... }
Somebody knows why the type inferred is not the return type of the function?
EDIT: edited to make clear this happens with methods without overloads
You are right in the sense that the compiler could reason out that all String.Format overloads return a string and therefore infer that a must be a string no matter what b really is.
The truth is that the compiler does not do that. It solves the general case, which is good, and because overloads with different return types are valid in C#, it simply assigns the return type as dynamic and lets the runtime figure it out.
Answering your specific question,
public string MethodWithoutOverloads(string a, string b) { ... }
dynamic a = "";
var result = MethodWithoutOverloads(a, a); // result is dynamic.
Lets imagine the compiler decides that result is string and you publish to the wild west your library. Then, later on, you decide to add an overload with the following signature:
public int MethodWithoutOverloads(int a, int b) { ... }
Now, what should the type of result be? And, what happens to existing code that relied on result being strongly typed to string?
string result = MethodWithoutOverloads(someDynamicVariable, someOtherDynamicVariable);
The semantics change completely; before a consumer had a safe strongly typed variable, now he suddenly has a potentially unsafe implicit cast that can blow up in runtime.
Because the compiler doesn't know which method is going to be invoked at run time.
For example, you may have the two methods:
int MyMethod(int a)
{
return 5;
}
double MyMethod(string a)
{
return 6.0;
}
And you write the following code:
dynamic myThing = 5;
var myResult = MyMethod(myThing);
Considering we've explicitly said myThing is dynamic, and this its type is to be determined at runtime, we have no idea which method will be invoked (if any). Thus, we don't know the return type, either.
Many LINQ methods take the form of
MethodName<Type>();
It appears that when calling these methods the Type is optional. For example, these two statements seem to produce identical results:
var a = someStringList.First<string>();
var b = someStringList.First();
Why would I want to type out the <string> portion of that statement? Are there cases where it has utility?
First of all, note that this applies to any generic method, not just LINQ methods.
In general, you do not need to specify the type on generic method, because, usually, the type can be inferred from usage. For example:
T SomeFunc<T>(T arg) {....}
var x = SomeFunc("Hello World");
Since we used a string for the parameter, the compiler decide that T is a string, and therefore we concludes that the method will return a string.
Other times, it cannot deduce it:
T SomeOtherFunc<T>(string arg) {....}
var x = SomeOtherFunc("Hello World"); // error : cannot infer type
IN these case, you have to specify the type:
var x = SomeOtherFunc<int>("Hello World"); // x will be an int.
If you really want to, say for added clarity, you could specify the type even when it can be deduced, but it must be correct:
T SomeFunc<T>(T arg) {....}
var x = SomeFunc<string>("Hello World"); // OK
var y = SomeFunc<int>("Hello World"); // Error
FInally, remember, that for extension methods, like First<> in your example, the object is actually the first parameter, so that can be used in type inference. First<> would be defined as:
public static T First<T>(this IEnumerable<T> coll) ;
Because in the second one type is inferred by the compiler automatically based on the type of someStringList.Since it is an IEnumerable<string> compiler resolves the generic argument type as string.
Ok, so it sounds like it could be used to cast if needed...why not use .Cast?
Because Cast method takes a non-generic IEnumerable as it's first parameter so there is no way to infer the type and that's why you need to provide it.
Consider the following code:
static void Main()
{
dynamic a = 1;
int b = OneMethod(a);
}
private static string OneMethod(int number)
{
return "";
}
Please notice that type of b and return type of OneMethod does not match. Nevertheless it builds and throws the exception at runtime. My question is that why does the compiler let this? Or what is the philosophy behind this?
The reason behind this may be Compiler does not know which OneMethod would be called, because a is dynamic. But why it cannot see that there is only one OneMethod. There will surely be an exception at runtime.
Any expression that has an operand of type dynamic will have a type of dynamic itself.
Thus your expression OneMethod(a) returns an object that's typed dynamically
so the first part of your code is equivalent to
static void Main()
{
dynamic a = 1;
dynamic temp = OneMethod(a);
int b = temp;
}
one way of argue why this is sensible even in your case depends on whether or not you think the compiler should change behavior for that particular line depending when you add the below method
private static T OneMethod<T>(T number)
Now the compiler won't know the type returned until runtime. It won't even know which method is called. The generic or the non generic. Wouldn't you be surprised if it in the first case marked the assignment as a compile error and then by adding a completely different method it got moved to a runtime error?
using the following code, all cause a compilation error (.net 2):
var headers = new WebHeaderCollection();
var a = headers[0];
var b = headers[(int)0];
const int FIRST_HEADER = 0;
var c = headers[FIRST_HEADER];
All fail with: The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'System.Net.WebHeaderCollection.this[System.Net.HttpRequestHeader]' and 'System.Net.WebHeaderCollection.this[System.Net.HttpResponseHeader]'.
I can understand to some extent why (a) would fail, as the overloads accept the HttpRequestHeader/HttpResponseHeader enums; but (b) and (c) are implicitly cast to type int.
The following works:
var headers = new WebHeaderCollection();
int index = 0;
var d = headers[index];
I only came across this when writing some tests, and needed the ability to prove that an expected header was added (and in my scenario would always be the only one!)
Why do i have to declare a variable of type int to use this overload?
In all cases, the expression is deemed to be "a constant expression with value zero" - which is implicitly convertible to any enum type.
Your later code works because you're effectively losing the const-ness, so that removes the implicit conversion.
In fact, there's a bug in the C# compiler around this, which means it treats any constant expression with value zero, not just integer values, as convertible to any enum type - so this works too, but shouldn't:
HttpRequestHeader weird = 0.0;
I have the following code:
Func<string, bool> comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
};
However, the following does not compile:
var comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
};
Why can't the compiler figure out it is a Func<string, bool>? It takes one string parameter, and returns a boolean. Instead, it gives me the error:
Cannot assign anonymous method to an
implicitly-typed local variable.
I have one guess and that is if the var version compiled, it would lack consistency if I had the following:
var comparer = delegate(string arg1, string arg2, string arg3, string arg4, string arg5) {
return false;
};
The above wouldn't make sense since Func<> allows only up to 4 arguments (in .NET 3.5, which is what I am using). Perhaps someone could clarify the problem. Thanks.
UPDATE: This answer was written over ten years ago and should be considered to be of historical interest; in C# 10 the compiler will infer some delegate types.
Others have already pointed out that there are infinitely many possible delegate types that you could have meant; what is so special about Func that it deserves to be the default instead of Predicate or Action or any other possibility? And, for lambdas, why is it obvious that the intention is to choose the delegate form, rather than the expression tree form?
But we could say that Func is special, and that the inferred type of a lambda or anonymous method is Func of something. We'd still have all kinds of problems. What types would you like to be inferred for the following cases?
var x1 = (ref int y)=>123;
There is no Func<T> type that takes a ref anything.
var x2 = y=>123;
We don't know the type of the formal parameter, though we do know the return. (Or do we? Is the return int? long? short? byte?)
var x3 = (int y)=>null;
We don't know the return type, but it can't be void. The return type could be any reference type or any nullable value type.
var x4 = (int y)=>{ throw new Exception(); }
Again, we don't know the return type, and this time it can be void.
var x5 = (int y)=> q += y;
Is that intended to be a void-returning statement lambda or something that returns the value that was assigned to q? Both are legal; which should we choose?
Now, you might say, well, just don't support any of those features. Just support "normal" cases where the types can be worked out. That doesn't help. How does that make my life easier? If the feature works sometimes and fails sometimes then I still have to write the code to detect all of those failure situations and give a meaningful error message for each. We still have to specify all that behaviour, document it, write tests for it, and so on. This is a very expensive feature that saves the user maybe half a dozen keystrokes. We have better ways to add value to the language than spending a lot of time writing test cases for a feature that doesn't work half the time and doesn't provide hardly any benefit in cases where it does work.
The situation where it is actually useful is:
var xAnon = (int y)=>new { Y = y };
because there is no "speakable" type for that thing. But we have this problem all the time, and we just use method type inference to deduce the type:
Func<A, R> WorkItOut<A, R>(Func<A, R> f) { return f; }
...
var xAnon = WorkItOut((int y)=>new { Y = y });
and now method type inference works out what the func type is.
Only Eric Lippert knows for sure, but I think it's because the signature of the delegate type doesn't uniquely determine the type.
Consider your example:
var comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; };
Here are two possible inferences for what the var should be:
Predicate<string> comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; }; // okay
Func<string, bool> comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; }; // also okay
Which one should the compiler infer? There's no good reason to choose one or the other. And although a Predicate<T> is functionally equivalent to a Func<T, bool>, they are still different types at the level of the .NET type system. The compiler therefore cannot unambiguously resolve the delegate type, and must fail the type inference.
Eric Lippert has an old post about it where he says
And in fact the C# 2.0 specification
calls this out. Method group
expressions and anonymous method
expressions are typeless expressions
in C# 2.0, and lambda expressions join
them in C# 3.0. Therefore it is
illegal for them to appear "naked" on
the right hand side of an implicit
declaration.
Different delegates are considered different types. e.g., Action is different than MethodInvoker, and an instance of Action can't be assigned to a variable of type MethodInvoker.
So, given an anonymous delegate (or lambda) like () => {}, is it an Action or a MethodInvoker? The compiler can't tell.
Similarly, if I declare a delegate type taking a string argument and returning a bool, how would the compiler know you really wanted a Func<string, bool> instead of my delegate type? It can't infer the delegate type.
The following points are from the MSDN regarding Implicitly Typed Local Variables:
var can only be used when a local variable is declared and initialized in the same statement; the variable cannot be initialized to null, or to a method group or an anonymous function.
The var keyword instructs the compiler to infer the type of the variable from the expression on the right side of the initialization statement.
It is important to understand that the var keyword does not mean "variant" and does not indicate that the variable is loosely typed, or late-bound. It just means that the compiler determines and assigns the most appropriate type.
MSDN Reference: Implicitly Typed Local Variables
Considering the following regarding Anonymous Methods:
Anonymous methods enable you to omit the parameter list.
MSDN Reference: Anonymous Methods
I would suspect that since the anonymous method may actually have different method signatures, the compiler is unable to properly infer what the most appropriate type to assign would be.
My post doesn't answer the actual question, but it does answer the underlying question of :
"How do I avoid having to type out some fugly type like Func<string, string, int, CustomInputType, bool, ReturnType>?" [1]
Being the lazy/hacky programmer that I am, I experimented with using Func<dynamic, object> - which takes a single input parameter and returns an object.
For multiple arguments, you can use it like so:
dynamic myParams = new ExpandoObject();
myParams.arg0 = "whatever";
myParams.arg1 = 3;
Func<dynamic, object> y = (dynObj) =>
{
return dynObj.arg0.ToUpper() + (dynObj.arg1 * 45); //screw type casting, amirite?
};
Console.WriteLine(y(myParams));
Tip: You can use Action<dynamic> if you don't need to return an object.
Yeah I know it probably goes against your programming principles, but this makes sense to me and probably some Python coders.
I'm pretty novice at delegates... just wanted to share what I learned.
[1] This assumes that you aren't calling a method that requires a predefined Func as a parameter, in which case, you'll have to type that fugly string :/
Other answers were correct at the time they were written, but starting from C# 10.0 (from 2021), the compiler can infer a suitable delegate type (like some Func<...>, Action<...> or generated delegate type) in such cases.
See C# 10 Features - Lambda improvements.
var comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
}; // OK in C# 10.0, picks 'Func<string, bool>' in this case
Of course the more usual syntax is to us =>, so:
var comparer = (string value) => {
return value != "0";
}; // OK in C# 10.0, picks 'Func<string, bool>' in this case
How is about that?
var item = new
{
toolisn = 100,
LangId = "ENG",
toolPath = (Func<int, string, string>) delegate(int toolisn, string LangId)
{
var path = "/Content/Tool_" + toolisn + "_" + LangId + "/story.html";
return File.Exists(Server.MapPath(path)) ? "<a style=\"vertical-align:super\" href=\"" + path + "\" target=\"_blank\">execute example</a> " : "";
}
};
string result = item.toolPath(item.toolisn, item.LangId);