Develop Reference

Test a function for void return in C#

I want to write a function that takes a function as an argument and then do different things based on whether the passed-in function returns void vs a value.
C# signature checking can't tell the difference so I'm stuck doing it in code.
Is there an easy way to test whether an arbitrary function returns void?
To be clear. I explicitly am not interested in a compile error. I just want the equivalent of what I can do for any other object.
void IsString(object o) => o is string;
void ElseWhere() {
object o = 1;
if (IsString(o)) Bla();
However even this gets a compile error claiming the two methods are ambiguous. It doesn't flag the methods themselves ambiguous but I get an error on the call saying it can't resolve between them.
private static bool HasNoReturnValue(Action o) => true;
private static bool HasNoReturnValue(Func<object> o) => false;
...
if (HasNoReturnValue(SomeFunction)) Bla();
As do anything I've tried involving typeof:
if (SomeFunction is typeof(Func(object>)) Bla();

Let's say you have two methods, one of which returns a Boolean and one which returns void.
void SomeFunction1()
{
}
bool SomeFunction2()
{
return false;
}
To pass either of these as a pointer to a method, you have to convert them to a delegate. Two types of delegates: Action and Func<bool>, respectively:
var action1 = new Action(SomeFunction1);
var action2 = new Func<bool>(SomeFunction2);
You can then write two methods that accept these types as arguments:
void AcceptDelegate(Action action)
{
Console.WriteLine("The delegate returns void.");
}
void AcceptDelegate(Func<bool> func)
{
Console.WriteLine("The delegate returns a Boolean.");
}
And call them like this:
AcceptDelegate(action1);
AcceptDelegate(action2);
Or you could pass the method group directly and the compiler will figure out the type (Why? See the Microsoft documentation on c# method group conversions):
AcceptDelegate(SomeFunction1);
AcceptDelegate(SomeFunction2);
Either way you call them, you would get this output:
The delegate returns void.
The delegate returns a Boolean.
The reason this works is the compiler will automatically pick the right one at compile-time, based on the type of the delegate, just as it would pick the overload for any type such as string or integer. This is the type-safe / early-bound way to do it.
If you insist on an "any delegate"/ late binding sort of approach, you could do something like this:
void AcceptAnyDelegate(Delegate anyAction)
{
Console.WriteLine("The function returns a {0}", anyAction.Method.ReturnType);
}
Because the signature isn't type specific, you have to pass the specific delegates this time (Why? See this answer):
AcceptAnyDelegate(action1);
AcceptAnyDelegate(action2);
And the output would be:
The function returns a Void
The function returns a Boolean
Edit
After rereading your comments, I believe the confusion here is due to a misunderstanding of method groups and delegates.
When you write something like this:
Foo(Bar);
...it appears you believe you are passing to Foo a direct reference to the Bar method. That is not correct. What you are doing is specifying a method group, which the compiler can then use to infer the type of delegate to pass. If Bar is a method with no inputs or outputs, the above code is exactly the same as
Foo(new Action( Bar ));
...only the creation of the delegate is hidden from you by the compiler.
All delegates are specifically typed with respect to their parameters and return type. The Delegate base type is abstract and cannot exist in concrete form. So there is no such thing as passing a type-agnostic function reference-- it doesn't exist in c#.
If you really really want to pass something that is type-agnostic, you can ask the caller to pass a lambda expression:
Foo( () => SomeFunction1() );
You could then parse the expression to figure out the method's inputs and outputs:
void Foo(Expression<Action> anyAction)
{
var mce = anyAction.Body as MethodCallExpression;
var method = mce.Method;
Console.WriteLine("The method has a return type of {0}", method.ReturnType.Name);
}
Then to invoke the expression you would use:
var compiled = anyAction.Compile();
compiled();
That is the closest you're going to get.

There's two different types here:
Action for no return type
and
Func for a return type
Can you make two different signatures for these two different argument types?

This will do the trick
public static void TakeInAFunc<T>(T aFuncOrAction)
{
if (typeof(T) == typeof(Func<>))
{
// some value returned.
}
else if (typeof(T) == typeof(Action<>))
{
// it returns void.
}
}

How to detect actual type of an expression result? [duplicate]

I have a method that accepts a Expression<Func<T, object>> instance. I want to get at the actual data type being returned by a specific expression instance, rather than object.
I can get it to work for direct property references, so if I pass in the expression x => x.IntegerProperty I can get a Type reference for an integer. This approach requires converting it to a MemberExpression.
However, I can't get it to work for arbitrary expressions. For instance, if the expression is x => x.IntegerProperty.ToString() I want to get a Type reference for a string. I can't compile this to a MemberExpression, and if I just .Compile() it and check the return type I get "object".
How can I look at the specific expression instance and derive the actual return type?

Something like this might do the trick. It probably doesn't cover every possibility, but it's a start.
public static Type GetObjectType<T>(Expression<Func<T, object>> expr)
{
if ((expr.Body.NodeType == ExpressionType.Convert) ||
(expr.Body.NodeType == ExpressionType.ConvertChecked))
{
var unary = expr.Body as UnaryExpression;
if (unary != null)
return unary.Operand.Type;
}
return expr.Body.Type;
}

While not impossible, this is particularly difficult. It would require walking the expression tree and doing some potentially complex logic. For example, what would you want to see if I passed in the following expression?
Func<bool, object> expr = switch => switch ? 1 : "False";
This method could either return an int or a string.
Now, you might be able to make more headway by offloading some of this logic on the compiler. You could change your method parameter from Func<T, object> to Func<T, TReturn> and use typeof(TReturn) within the method to determine what the compiler decided the return type of the expression was.
Of course, in the case of my example, you'll still be working against object. But, your example of x => x.IntegerProperty.ToString() will yield string, which is what you're looking for.

Bit of a cheeky way (and it involves actually invoking the Func), but you can do this:
using System;
class Program
{
static Func<T,object> MakeFunc<T>()
{
return x => 23;
}
static Type GetReturnType<T>(Func<T,object> f)
{
return f(default(T)).GetType();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Type t = GetReturnType(MakeFunc<string>());
Console.WriteLine(t);
}
}
It's not guaranteed to work in all situations, I should add - particularly if the default(T) isn't a valid parameter to the Func. But it's a potential starting point at least.

How to pass an arbitrary function with some bound parameters to another function?

I have a generic function CallLater that should accept an arbitrary other function and possibly call it later with some parameters. All kind of functions should be supported - static, instance, private, public. Parameters are analyzed and constructed dynamically in CallLater with the help of reflection. However, some of them may need to be bound to fixed values before passing the function to the CallLater.
For example:
void CallLater(Delegate d) {
// Expects a function that returns string and has one argument of arbitrary type.
if (d.Method.GetParameters().Length == 1 &&
d.Method.ReturnType == typeof(string)) {
object param1 = Activator.CreateInstance(d.Method.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType);
Console.WriteLine((string)d.DynamicInvoke(param1));
}
}
// Has one extra float parameter.
string MyFunc(int a, float b) { ... }
My idea was to do something like that:
float pi = 3.14f;
CallLater(delegate(int a) { return MyFunc(a, pi); });
But this doesn't work as compiler complains:
Error CS1660: Cannot convert `anonymous method' to non-delegate type `System.Delegate' (CS1660) (test-delegate)
What is the correct approach to achieve my goal?
P.S. Please do not offer the solution to declare a fixed delegate type as CallLater is way more complex and may support variable number of arguments too.
P.P.S. It might be that my solution is Func, but I wasn't able to use it on Mono so far.

You can always redeclare Func yourself:
public delegate TReturn FFunc<TArg,TReturn>(TArg arg);
Which you can use thusly:
float pi = 3.14f;
CallLater((FFunc<int,string>)(delegate(int a) { return MyFunc(a, pi); }));

I'd suggest using anonymous functions in which you call the method you want to execute. These are executed later when the anonymous method is executed.
private static void ExecuteBoolResult(Func<bool> method)
{
bool result = method();
if (!result)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("method did not return true");
}
}
CheckBoolResult(() => AnotherFunction("with ", 3, " parameters"));
CheckBoolResult(() => AnotherFunction(2, "parameters"));

C# Generic Generics (A Serious Question)

In C# I am trying to write code where I would be creating a Func delegate which is in itself generic. For example the following (non-Generic) delegate is returning an arbitrary string:
Func<string> getString = () => "Hello!";
I on the other hand want to create a generic which acts similarly to generic methods. For example if I want a generic Func to return default(T) for a type T. I would imagine that I write code as follows:
Func<T><T> getDefaultObject = <T>() => default(T);
Then I would use it as
getDefaultObject<string>() which would return null and if I were to write getDefaultObject<int>() would return 0.
This question is not merely an academic excercise. I have found numerous places where I could have used this but I cannot get the syntax right. Is this possible? Are there any libraries which provide this sort of functionality?

Well you can't overload anything based only on the return value, so this includes variables.
You can however get rid of that lambda expression and write a real function:
T getDefaultObject<T>() { return default(T); }
and then you call it exactly like you want:
int i=getDefaultObject<int>(); // i=0
string s=getDefaultObject<string>(); // s=null

Though one might find practical workarounds like Stephen Cleary's
Func<T> CreateGetDefaultObject<T>() { return () => default(T); }
where you can specify the generics directly, this is a quite interesting problem from a theoretical point that cannot be solved by C#'s current type system.
A type which, as you call it, is in itself generic, is referred to as a higher-rank type.
Consider the following example (pseudo-C#):
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test(Func<?> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
In your proposed system, a call could look like that:
Test(x => new[] { x }); // Returns ({ 1 }, { "Hello" })
But the question is: How do we type the function Test and it's argument f?
Apparently, f maps every type T to an array T[] of this type. So maybe?
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test<T>(Func<T, T[]> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
But this doesn't work. We can't parameterize Test with any particular T, since f should can be applied to all types T. At this point, C#'s type system can't go further.
What we needed was a notation like
Tuple<int[], string[]> Test(forall T : Func<T, T[]> f) {
return (f(1), f("Hello"));
}
In your case, you could type
forall T : Func<T> getDefaultValue = ...
The only language I know that supports this kind of generics is Haskell:
test :: (forall t . t -> [t]) -> ([Int], [String])
test f = (f 1, f "hello")
See this Haskellwiki entry on polymorphism about this forall notation.

This isn't possible, since a delegate instance in C# cannot have generic parameters. The closest you can get is to pass the type object as a regular parameter and use reflection. :(
In many cases, casting to dynamic helps remove the pain of reflection, but dynamic doesn't help when creating new instances, such as your example.

You can't do this, because generic type parameters have to be known at runtime. You have to use the activator class:
Object o = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(StringBuilder));
which will do exactly what you want to. You can write it as the following:
public T Default<T>()
{
return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T));
}
Edit
Blindy's solution is better.

C# lambda - curry usecases

I read This article and i found it interesting.
To sum it up for those who don't want to read the entire post. The author implements a higher order function named Curry like this (refactored by me without his internal class):
public static Func<T1, Func<T2, TResult>>
Curry<T1, T2, TResult>(this Func<T1, T2, TResult> fn)
{
Func<Func<T1, T2, TResult>, Func<T1, Func<T2, TResult>>> curry =
f => x => y => f(x, y);
return curry(fn);
}
That gives us the ability to take an expression like F(x, y)
eg.
Func<int, int, int> add = (x, y) => x + y;
and call it in the F.Curry()(x)(y) manner;
This part i understood and i find it cool in a geeky way. What i fail to wrap my head around is the practical usecases for this approach. When and where this technique is necessary and what can be gained from it?
Thanks in advance.
Edited:
After the initial 3 responses i understand that the gain would be that in some cases when we create a new function from the curried some parameters are not re evalued.
I made this little test in C# (keep in mind that i'm only interested in the C# implementation and not the curry theory in general):
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Func<Int, Int, string> concat = (a, b) => a.ToString() + b.ToString();
Func<Int, Func<Int, string>> concatCurry = concat.Curry();
Func<Int, string> curryConcatWith100 = (a) => concatCurry(100)(a);
Console.WriteLine(curryConcatWith100(509));
Console.WriteLine(curryConcatWith100(609));
}
public struct Int
{
public int Value {get; set;}
public override string ToString()
{
return Value.ToString();
}
public static implicit operator Int(int value)
{
return new Int { Value = value };
}
}
On the 2 consecutive calls to curryConcatWith100 the ToString() evaluation for the value 100 is called twice (once for each call) so i dont see any gain in evaluation here. Am i missing something ?

Currying is used to transform a function with x parameters to a function with y parameters, so it can be passed to another function that needs a function with y parameters.
For example, Enumerable.Select(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<TSource, bool> selector) takes a function with 1 parameter. Math.Round(double, int) is a function that has 2 parameters.
You could use currying to "store" the Round function as data, and then pass that curried function to the Select like so
Func<double, int, double> roundFunc = (n, p) => Math.Round(n, p);
Func<double, double> roundToTwoPlaces = roundFunc.Curry()(2);
var roundedResults = numberList.Select(roundToTwoPlaces);
The problem here is that there's also anonymous delegates, which make currying redundant. In fact anonymous delegates are a form of currying.
Func<double, double> roundToTwoPlaces = n => Math.Round(n, 2);
var roundedResults = numberList.Select(roundToTwoPlaces);
Or even just
var roundedResults = numberList.Select(n => Math.Round(n, 2));
Currying was a way of solving a particular problem given the syntax of certain functional languages. With anonymous delegates and the lambda operator the syntax in .NET is alot simpler.

Its easier to first consider fn(x,y,z). This could by curried using fn(x,y) giving you a function that only takes one parameter, the z. Whatever needs to be done with x and y alone can be done and stored by a closure that the returned function holds on to.
Now you call the returned function several times with various values for z without having to recompute the part the required x and y.
Edit:
There are effectively two reasons to curry.
Parameter reduction
As Cameron says to convert a function that takes say 2 parameters into a function that only takes 1. The result of calling this curried function with a parameter is the same as calling the original with the 2 parameters.
With Lambdas present in C# this has limited value since these can provide this effect anyway. Although it you are use C# 2 then the Curry function in your question has much greater value.
Staging computation
The other reason to curry is as I stated earlier. To allow complex/expensive operations to be staged and re-used several times when the final parameter(s) are supplied to the curried function.
This type of currying isn't truely possible in C#, it really takes a functional language that can natively curry any of its functions to acheive.
Conclusion
Parameter reduction via the Curry you mention is useful in C# 2 but is considerably de-valued in C# 3 due to Lambdas.

In a sense, curring is a technique to
enable automatic partial application.
More formally, currying is a technique
to turn a function into a function
that accepts one and only one
argument.
In turn, when called, that function
returns another function that accepts
one and only one argument . . . and so
on until the 'original' function is
able to be executed.
from a thread in codingforums
I particularly like the explanation and length at which this is explained on this page.

One example: You have a function compare(criteria1, criteria2, option1, option2, left, right). But when you want to supply the function compare to some method with sorts a list, then compare() must only take two arguments, compare(left, right). With curry you then bind the criteria arguments as you need it for sorting this list, and then finally this highly configurable function presents to the sort algorithm as any other plain compare(left,right).
Detail: .NET delegates employ implicit currying. Each non-static member function of a class has an implicit this reference, still, when you write delegates, you do not need to manually use some currying to bind this to the function. Instead C# cares for the syntactic sugar, automatically binds this, and returns a function which only requires the arguments left.
In C++ boost::bind et al. are used for the same. And as always, in C++ everything is a little bit more explicit (for instance, if you want to pass a instance-member function as a callback, you need to explicitly bind this).

I have this silly example:
Uncurry version:
void print(string name, int age, DateTime dob)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(name);
Console.Out.WriteLine(age);
Console.Out.WriteLine(dob.ToShortDateString());
Console.Out.WriteLine();
}
Curry Function:
public Func<string, Func<int, Action<DateTime>>> curry(Action<string, int, DateTime> f)
{
return (name) => (age) => (dob) => f(name, age, dob);
}
Usage:
var curriedPrint = curry(print);
curriedPrint("Jaider")(29)(new DateTime(1983, 05, 10)); // Console Displays the values
Have fun!

here's another example of how you might use a Curry function. Depending on some condition (e.g. day of week) you could decide what archive policy to apply before updating a file.
void ArchiveAndUpdate(string[] files)
{
Func<string, bool> archiveCurry1 = (file) =>
Archive1(file, "archiveDir", 30, 20000000, new[] { ".tmp", ".log" });
Func<string, bool> archiveCurry2 = (file) =>
Archive2("netoworkServer", "admin", "nimda", new FileInfo(file));
Func<string, bool> archvieCurry3 = (file) => true;
// backup locally before updating
UpdateFiles(files, archiveCurry1);
// OR backup to network before updating
UpdateFiles(files, archiveCurry2);
// OR do nothing before updating
UpdateFiles(files, archvieCurry3);
}
void UpdateFiles(string[] files, Func<string, bool> archiveCurry)
{
foreach (var file in files)
{
if (archiveCurry(file))
{
// update file //
}
}
}
bool Archive1(string fileName, string archiveDir,
int maxAgeInDays, long maxSize, string[] excludedTypes)
{
// backup to local disk
return true;
}
bool Archive2(string sereverName, string username,
string password, FileInfo fileToArchvie)
{
// backup to network
return true;
}