Develop Reference

Casting to a generic interface [duplicate]

I have the following classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView<T> : UserControl
where T : BaseViewPresenter { }
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter> { }
I have a method that looks like this (simplified)
public BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> Resolve(BaseViewPresenter model)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
// Correctly creates BaseView object
var control = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType);
// Fails to cast as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> so returns null
return control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>;
}
When I call this using an instances of LoginPresenter
var login = new LoginPresenter();
var ctl = Resolve(login);
The line Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) correctly resolves into a new instances of my LoginView, however control as BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> can't do the cast correctly so returns null.
Is there a way to correctly cast the control into BaseView<BaseViewPresenter> without using specific type generics?
Since LoginView inherits from BaseView<LoginPresenter>, and LoginPresenter inherits from BaseViewPresenter, I would assume there's a way to convert LoginView to BaseView<BaseViewPresenter>.
I am stuck with using .Net 3.5

This is a very frequently asked question. Let's rename your types:
abstract class Fruit { } // was BaseViewPresenter
abstract class FruitBowl<T> where T : Fruit // was BaseView
class Apple : Fruit { } // was LoginPresenter
class BowlOfApples : FruitBowl<Apple> { } // was LoginView
Your question now is:
I have a BowlOfApples, which inherits from FruitBowl<Apple>. Why can I not use it as a FruitBowl<Fruit>? An apple is a fruit, so a bowl of apples is a bowl of fruit.
No, it isn't. You can put a banana in a bowl of fruit, but you can't put a banana in a bowl of apples, and therefore a bowl of apples is not a bowl of fruit. (And by similar argument, a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of apples either.) Since the operations you can legally perform on the two types are different, they cannot be compatible.
Here is a photo of StackOverflow legend Jon Skeet demonstrating this fact:
The feature you want is called generic contravariance, and it is supported only on interfaces and delegate types when the compiler can prove that the variance is safe, and when the varying type is a reference type. For example, you can use an IEnumerable<Apple> in a context where IEnumerable<Fruit> is needed because the compiler can verify that there is no way that you can put a Banana into a sequence of fruit.
Do a search on "C# covariance and contravariance" on this site or on the web and you'll find many more details about how this feature works. In particular, my series of articles on how we designed and implemented this feature in C# 4 starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/16/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-one.aspx

I accepted Eric's answer since it provides a great explanation of why what I wanted wasn't possible, but I also thought I'd share my solution in case anyone else runs into this same problem.
I removed the generic type parameter from my original BaseView class, and created a 2nd version of the BaseView class that included the generic type parameter and specifics for it.
The first version is used by my .Resolve() method or other code that doesn't care about the specific types, and the second version is used by any code that does care, such as the implentation of a BaseView
Here's an example of how my code ended up looking
// base classes
public abstract class BaseViewPresenter { }
public abstract class BaseView : UserControl
{
public BaseViewPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseView<T> : BaseView
where T : BaseViewPresenter
{
public new T Presenter
{
get { return base.Presenter as T; }
set { base.Presenter = value; }
}
}
// specific classes
public class LoginPresenter : BaseViewPresenter { }
public partial class LoginView : BaseView<LoginPresenter>
{
// Can now call things like Presenter.LoginPresenterMethod()
}
// updated .Resolve method used for obtaining UI object
public BaseView Resolve(BaseViewPresenter presenter)
{
var type = model.GetType();
var viewType = _dataTemplates[type];
BaseView view = Activator.CreateInstance(viewType) as BaseView;
view.Presenter = presenter;
return view;
}

You're expecting to treat the type as being covariant with respect to the generic argument. Classes can never be covariant; you'd need to use an interface rather than (or in addition to) an abstract class to make it covariant with respect to T. You'd also need to be using C# 4.0.

My usual solution to this problem is to create an intermediary class that has access to the type-parametric class's methods through delegates. Fields can also be accessed through getters/setters.
The general pattern goes:
public abstract class Super {}
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
public MyGeneralType AsGeneralType() {
return MyGeneralType.Create(this);
}
// Depending on the context, an implicit cast operator might make things
// look nicer, though it might be too subtle to some tastes.
public static implicit operator MyGeneralType(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
public int field;
public void MyMethod1() {}
public void MyMethod2(int argument) {}
public abstract bool MyMethod3(string argument);
}
public delegate T Getter<T>();
public delegate void Setter<T>(T value);
public delegate void MyMethod1Del();
public delegate void MyMethod2Del(int argument);
public delegate bool MyMethod3Del(string argument);
public class MyGeneralType {
public Getter<int> FieldGetter;
public Setter<int> FieldSetter;
public MyMethod1Del MyMethod1;
public MyMethod2Del MyMethod2;
public MyMethod3Del MyMethod3;
public static MyGeneralType Create<T>(MyAbstractType<T> t) where T : Super {
var g = new MyGeneralType();
g.FieldGetter = delegate { return t.field; };
g.FieldSetter = value => { t.field = value; };
g.MyMethod1 = t.MyMethod1;
g.MyMethod2 = t.MyMethod2;
g.MyMethod3 = t.MyMethod3;
return g;
}
public int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
The above exemplifies getting all the methods and fields but normally I only need a few of them. This is a general solution to the problem and one could feasibly write a tool to generate these intermediary classes automatically, which I might at some point.
Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/tLkmgR
Note that this is enough for all my cases, but you can be extra hacky with this:
public abstract class MyAbstractType<T> where T : Super {
// ... Same everything else ...
// data fields must become abstract getters/setters, unfortunate
public abstract int field {
get;
set;
}
public static implicit operator MyAbstractType<Super>(MyAbstractType<T> t) {
return MyGeneralType.Create(t);
}
}
public class MyGeneralType : MyAbstractType<Super> {
// ... same constructors and setter/getter
// fields but only keep method fields
// that contain the method references for
// implementations of abstract classes,
// and rename them not to clash with the
// actual method names ...
public MyMethod3Del myMethod3Ref;
// Implement abstract methods by calling the corresponding
// method references.
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
return myMethod3Ref(argument);
}
// Same getters/setters but with override keyword
public override int field {
get { return FieldGetter(); }
set { FieldSetter(value); }
}
}
And there you go, now you can literally cast a MyAbstractType<Sub> where Sub : Super to a MyAbstractType<Super>, although it's no longer the same object anymore, but it does retain the same methods and data, it's sort of a complex pointer.
public class Sub : Super {}
public class MySubType : MyAbstractType<Sub> {
public int _field;
public override int field {
get { return _field; }
set { _field = value; }
}
public override bool MyMethod3(string argument) {
Console.WriteLine("hello " + argument);
return argument == "world";
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
MyAbstractType<Sub> sub = new MyAbstractType<Sub>();
MyAbstractType<Super> super = sub;
super.MyMethod3("hello"); // calls sub.MyMethod3();
super.field = 10; // sets sub.field
}
}
This isn't as good in my opinion, the other version of MyGeneralType is a more straighforward layer over the concrete types, plus it doesn't require rewriting the data fields, but it does actually answer the question, technically. Try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/S3r3ke
Example
Using these abstract classes:
public abstract class Animal {
public string name;
public Animal(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public abstract string Sound();
}
public abstract class AnimalHouse<T> where T : Animal {
List<T> animals;
public AnimalHouse(T[] animals) {
this.animals = animals.ToList();
}
public static implicit operator GeneralAnimalHouse(AnimalHouse<T> house) {
return GeneralAnimalHouse.Create(house);
}
public List<string> HouseSounds() {
return animals.Select(animal => animal.Sound()).ToList();
}
}
We make this "general" variant:
public delegate List<string> HouseSoundsDel();
public class GeneralAnimalHouse {
public HouseSoundsDel HouseSounds;
public static GeneralAnimalHouse Create<T>(AnimalHouse<T> house) where T : Animal {
var general = new GeneralAnimalHouse();
general.HouseSounds = house.HouseSounds;
return general;
}
}
And finally with these inheritors:
public class Dog : Animal {
public Dog(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": woof";
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public Cat(string name) : base(name) {}
public override string Sound() {
return name + ": meow";
}
}
public class DogHouse : AnimalHouse<Dog> {
public DogHouse(params Dog[] dogs) : base(dogs) {}
}
public class CatHouse : AnimalHouse<Cat> {
public CatHouse(params Cat[] cats) : base(cats) {}
}
We use it like this:
public class AnimalCity {
List<GeneralAnimalHouse> houses;
public AnimalCity(params GeneralAnimalHouse[] houses) {
this.houses = houses.ToList();
}
public List<string> CitySounds() {
var random = new Random();
return houses.SelectMany(house => house.HouseSounds())
.OrderBy(x => random.Next())
.ToList();
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static void Main() {
var fluffy = new Cat("Fluffy");
var miu = new Cat("Miu");
var snuffles = new Cat("Snuffles");
var snoopy = new Dog("Snoopy");
var marley = new Dog("Marley");
var megan = new Dog("Megan");
var catHouse = new CatHouse(fluffy, miu, snuffles);
var dogHouse = new DogHouse(snoopy, marley, megan);
var animalCity = new AnimalCity(catHouse, dogHouse);
foreach (var sound in animalCity.CitySounds()) {
Console.WriteLine(sound);
}
}
}
Output:
Miu: meow
Snoopy: woof
Snuffles: meow
Fluffy: meow
Marley: woof
Megan: woof
Notes:
I added names so it's clear that the method references carry their owner's data with them, for those unfamiliar with delegates.
The required using statements for this code are System, System.Collections.Generic, and System.Linq.
You can try it here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/6qkHL3#
A version that makes GeneralAnimalHouse a subclass of AnimalHouse<Animal> can be found here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XS0ljg

Assign a sub class to an interface, with generics and covariant involved

I defined 3 interfaces:
public interface IManufacturerInput
{
}
public interface IManufacturerOutput
{
}
public interface IManufacturerApi<in S, out T>
where S : IManufacturerInput
where T : IManufacturerOutput
{
T Calculate(S);
}
And I defined a specific Manufacturer:
public class ManufacturerAInput : IManufacturerInput
{
}
public class ManufacturerAOutput : IManufacturerOutput
{
}
public class ManufacturerAApi : IManufacturerApi<ManufacturerAInput, ManufacturerAOutput>
{
public ManufacturerAOutput Calculate(ManufacturerAInput)
{
return null;
}
}
And In Main() I created a ManufacturerAApi, and try assign it to IManufacturerApi.
IManufacturerApi<IManufacturerInput, IManufacturerOutput> api = new ManufacturerAApi();
But it failed. The error message said (just abstract meaning):
Can't convert from ManufacturerAApi to IManufacturerApi<IManufacturerInput, IManufacturerOutput>
So is there any way I can make the assignment work? Thanks in advance.

What you are proposing isn't type safe. Let's change the names of your types to make the issue clearer:
public interface IPetFood { }
public interface IPetSound { }
public interface IPetCage<in S, out T>
where S : IPetFood
where T : IPetSound
{
T Feed(S s);
}
public class DogFood : IPetFood { }
public class CatFood : IPetFood { }
public class Bark : IPetSound { }
public class DogCage : IPetCage<DogFood, Bark>
{
public Bark Feed(DogFood input)
{
return new Bark();
}
}
And now suppose this is legal:
IPetCage<IPetFood, IPetSound> api = new DogCage();
Then we could do the following:
api.Feed(new CatFood()); //oops we've just given the dog some catfood.
The assignment will not work because S is contravariant, which means that any possible IPetFood passed into api.Feed would need to be a subtype of DogFood and you have the opposite; IPetFood is a superset of DogFood.

C# - Call base and class constructors in derived class

Suppose I have the following base and derived class in my C# program:
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass() { }
public BaseClass(int someVal)
{
// do something here
}
}
class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew)
: base()
{
// do something with the somethingNew varible
}
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew, int someVal)
: base(someVal)
{
// do **THE SAME THING** with the somethingNew varible as in first constructor
}
}
My question comes about in the final constructor - Ideally, what I'd like is to be able to do something along the lines of (although this won't compile):
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew, int someVal)
: base(someVal)
: this(somethingNew)
{
}
In other words, call both the base and the first constructor.
Is there any way to do this or do I just need to re-write the code inside each constructor in this case?
Thanks!!

Not to say this is the CORRECT answer (and I'd love to hear how others would recommend I do this), but what I ended up doing was creating a private setter method that either constructor can call along the following lines:
class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew)
: base()
{
setVals(somethingNew);
}
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew, int someVal)
: base(someVal)
{
setVals(somethingNew);
}
private setVals(string somethingNew)
{
// do something with the somethingNew varible
}
}
It saved my issue of having to deal with repetitive code and seems to be the cleanest way to do this, but, as I said, I'd love to see what others recommend / if there's a way to do this better.
Thanks!!!

You could accomplish this using default, nullable parameters values in your constructors.
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(int? someVal = null)
{
if (someVal.HasValue)
{
//Do something here
}
}
}
class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public DerivedClass(string somethingNew, int? someVal = null)
: base(someVal) // Pass someVal into BaseClass
{
// Do something with SomethingNew
}
}
Which can then be called as:
var d = new DerivedClass("SomeValue");
var d2 = new DerivedClass("SomeOtherValue", 2);

I would design base class like this
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass() { ... }
public BaseClass(int someVal) : this() { }
}
to ensure what ... code is executed always.

How To cast a child class to base class when base class is generic in c#

I have these classes:
public class BaseGame<T> where T : BaseQuestion
{
//some fileds and methods
}
public class BaseQuestion
{
//some fileds and methods
}
public class Question : BaseQuestion
{
//some fileds and methods
}
public class SampleGame : BaseGame<Question>
{
//some fileds and methods
}
Whenever i want to cast BaseGame to SampleGame i get Error.
void SetValue(BaseGame<BaseQuestion> _game)
{
SampleGame = (SampleGame) _game;
}
Cannot implicitly convert type BaseGame to SampleGame.
How To Fix this?
Thanks.

Change your code to this:
public interface IBaseGame<out T> where T : BaseQuestion
{
}
public class BaseGame<T> : IBaseGame<T>
where T : BaseQuestion
{
}
public class BaseQuestion
{
}
public class Question : BaseQuestion
{
}
public class SampleGame : BaseGame<Question>
{
}
And then your method:
void SetValue(IBaseGame<BaseQuestion> _game)
{
var SampleGame = (SampleGame) _game;
}
Why was your code broken?
You cannot do the cast because BaseGame was not covariant. This means that the compile cannot gaurantee that the cast is safe. Take for example, the following example:
public class BaseGame<T> where T : BaseQuestion
{
private List<T> Questions { get; set; }
public void AddQuestion(T question) { Questions.Add(question); }
}
var game = new BaseGame<Question> { Questions = new List<Question> };
game.AddQuestion(new Question());
Okay, so now your game has a list of Question, with one question in it. Now let's cast it:
public class BrokenQuestion : BaseQuestion
{
}
public class BrokenGame : BaseGame<BrokenQuestion>
{
}
var brokenGame = (BrokenGame)game;
brokenGame.Add(new BrokenQuestion());`
Oops! We just added a BrokenQuestion to a List<Question>. No good.
Defining the template argument as out T instead of T means we're making a contract that we will not accept sub classes of T, but we can return them. This means that it's now illegal to expose AddQuestion(T question). Now, the compiler can be sure that there will never be a BrokenQuestion added to List<Question>.
For more information, see here

Base class used as an abstract method's parameter?

I'm trying to setup some classes like:
public abstract class AnimalBase {
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
public AnimalBase(string speciesName) {
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
public abstract void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals);
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName) {
this.CopyFrom(new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName));
}
public override void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
public void Cripple() {
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public class MammalDefaultClass : AnimalDefaultClass {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public MammalDefaultClass(string speciesName) {
using (var dataStore = theoreticalFactory.GetDataStore()) {
this.WalksUpright = dataStore[speciesName].WalksUpright;
}
}
}
Obviously that's not quite what I'm trying to accomplish, but the idea is:
Several classes (Mammal, Fish, Insect, etc) which inherit from an abstract base (Animal).
Each child class has a corresponding class it can use (in this case to populate mutable default values) as a parameter for a method which was defined as abstract in the base class.
Each of those corresponding classes (MammalDefaultClass, FishDefaultClass, InsectDefaultClass, etc) inherit from a common base class (AnimalDefaultClass).
Those AnimalDefaultClass derivatives exist because each class of Animal will have different properties, but by definition there will always be a class capable of getting those values for any Animal.
My problem is:
That overridden version of CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass) isn't being recognized as a valid override of the abstract CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass), even though MammalDefaultClass inherits from AnimalDefaultClass
Is it possible to specify a base class as an abstract member's parameter? Is there a simple* workaround? Or is this whole thing just laid out wrong?
-edit: my resolution-
After playing around some with MWB and sza's suggestions, I ended up having each subclass implement the method using the base parameter and then cast the input as appropriate, something like:
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
...
// implements the abstract method from the base class:
public override void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.CopyFrom((MammalDefaultClass)defaultVals);
}
public void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
}
This solution forces me to always implement a CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass) , which was the point of the putting the abstract method in the base class in the first place.

I think you can try Abstract Factory pattern. Basically you want to handle some construction logic during the creating the object, and for each different subtype of the Product, you can do differently.
public abstract class AnimalBase
{
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
protected AnimalBase(string speciesName)
{
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase
{
public bool WalksUpright { get; set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName)
{
}
public void Cripple()
{
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public interface IAnimalFactory<T> where T : AnimalBase
{
T CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName);
}
public class MammalFactory: IAnimalFactory<Mammal>
{
public Mammal CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName)
{
var mammal = new Mammal(speciesName);
var mammalDefault = new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName);
mammal.WalksUpright = mammalDefault.WalksUpright;
return mammal;
}
}
And when you want to create a sub-typed object, you can do e.g.
var mammalFactory = new MammalFactory();
var bunny = mammalFactory.CreateAnAnimal("Bunny");

So it turns out that even though MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, you cannot override a function that takes an AnimalDefaultClass with one that takes a MammalDefaultClass.
Consider this block of code:
public class Dinosaur : AnimalDefaultClass;
Dinosaur defaultDinosaur;
public void makeDinosaur(AnimalDefaultClass adc)
{
adc.CopyFrom(defaultDinosaur);
}
MammalDefaultClass m;
makeDinosaur(m);
In this case MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, so m can be passed to makeDinosaur as adc. Furthermore the CopyFrom for an AnimalDefaultClass only needs another AnimalDefault class, so I can pass in a dinosaur. But that class is actually a Mammal, and so needs a MammalDefaultClass, which dinosaur is not.
The work around would be to take the original type signature and throw an error if the argument is the wrong type (similar to how arrays act in Java).