Develop Reference

Consuming F# generic operators in C#

Since C# doesn't support generic operator overloads, I tried F#. I have the following F# code which seems to produce the overloads that I want
type Value<'T>() =
static member ( + ) (lhs: Value<int>, rhs: Value<int>) = lhs
static member ( + ) (lhs: Value<decimal>, rhs: Value<int>) = lhs;
but consuming it from C# doesn't go as planned:
Value<decimal> decimalValue = null;
Value<int> intValue = null;
var intResult = intValue + intValue; // works fine :)
var decimalResult = decimalValue + intValue; // Error CS0034 Operator '+' is ambiguous on operands of type 'Value<decimal>' and 'Value<int>'
I know a little about statically resolved type parameters which may resolve the issue, but I don't want to use them because I need to carefully control the operations which are applied (e.g. I don't want to support adding strings and numbers).
Why is the call ambiguous? What can I do to resolve it?

Problems with dynamic parameter

I have this function
string F(dynamic a)
{
return "Hello World!";
}
later when i say
dynamic a = 5;
var result = F(a);
result must be in compilation time a string type, but that not happened, why?
In fact, the compilar pass this
int result2 = F(a);
and not this
int result3 = F(5);
Anything help please?

It is explained in here:
Overload resolution occurs at run time instead of at compile time if one or more of the arguments in a method call have the type dynamic, or if the receiver of the method call is of type dynamic.
Now in the case of F(a) since a is dynamic, compiler doesn't check for the overloads at compile-time. But when you say:
F(2);
2 is an integer and not dynamic. That's why the overload resolution occurs at compile time and you get the error.If you cast the integer literal to dynamic you won't get any error at compile time (but you do on run-time):
int x = F((dynamic)2);

Difference between Casting, Parsing and Converting [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is casting the same thing as converting?
(11 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have been working on some code for a while. And I had a question: What's the difference among casting, parsing and converting? And when we can use them?

Casting is when you take a variable of one type and change it to a different type. You can only do that in some cases, like so:
string str = "Hello";
object o = str;
string str2 = (string)o; // <-- This is casting
Casting does not change the variable's value - the value remains of the same type (the string "Hello").
Converting is when you take a value from one type and convert it to a different type:
double d = 5.5;
int i = (int)d; // <---- d was converted to an integer
Note that in this case, the conversion was done in the form of casting.
Parsing is taking a string and converting it to a different type by understanding its content. For instance, converting the string "123" to the number 123, or the string "Saturday, September 22nd" to a DateTime.

Casting: Telling the compiler that an object is really something else without changing it (though some data loss may be incurred).
object obj_s= "12345";
string str_i = (string) obj; // "12345" as string, explicit
int small = 12345;
long big = 0;
big = small; // 12345 as long, implicit
Parsing: Telling the program to interpret (on runtime) a string.
string int_s = "12345";
int i = int.Parse(int_s); // 12345 as int
Converting: Telling the program to use built in methods to try to change type for what may be not simply interchangeable.
double dub = 123.45;
int i = System.Convert.ToInt32(dub); // 123 as int

These are three terms each with specific uses:
casting - changing one type to another. In order to do this, the
types must be compatible: int -> object; IList<T> -> IEnumerable<T>
parsing - typically refers to reading strings and extracting useful parts
converting - similar to casting, but typically a conversion would involve changing one type to an otherwise non-compatible type. An example of that would be converting objects to strings.
A cast from one type to another requires some form of compatibility, usually via inheritance or implementation of an interface. Casting can be implicit or explicit:
class Foo : IFoo {
// implementations
}
// implicit cast
public IFoo GetFoo() {
return Foo;
}
// explicit cast
public IFoo GetFoo() {
return Foo as IFoo;
}
There are quite a few ways to parse. We read about XML parsing; some types have Parse and TryParse methods; and then there are times we need to parse strings or other types to extract the 'stuff we care about'.
int.Parse("3") // returns an integer value of 3
int.TryParse("foo", out intVal) // return true if the string could be parsed; otherwise false
Converting may entail changing one type into another incompatible one. This could involve some parsing as well. Conversion examples would usually be, IMO, very much tied to specific contexts.

casting
(casting to work the types need to be compatible)
Converting between data types can be done explicitly using a cast
static void _Casting()
{
int i = 10;
float f = 0;
f = i; // An implicit conversion, no data will be lost.
f = 0.5F;
i = (int)f; // An explicit conversion. Information will be lost.
}
parsing (Parsing is conversion between different types:)
converts one type to another type can be called as parsing uisng int.parse
int num = int.Parse("500");
traversing through data items like XML can be also called as parsing
When user-defined conversions get involved, this usually entails returning a different object/value. user-defined conversions usually exist between value types rather than reference types, so this is rarely an issue.
converting
Using the Convert-class actually just helps you parse it
for more please refer http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228360%28VS.80%29.aspx

This question is actually pretty complicated...
Normally, a cast just tells the runtime to change one type to another. These have to be types that are compatible. For example an int can always be represented as a long so it is OK to cast it to a long. Some casts have side-effects. For example, a float will drop its precision if it is cast to an int. So (int)1.5f will result in int value 1. Casts are usually the fastest way to change the type, because it is a single IL operator. For example, the code:
public void CastExample()
{
int i = 7;
long l = (long)i;
}
Performs the cast by running the IL code:
conv.i8 //convert to 8-byte integer (a.k.a. Int64, a.k.a. long).
A parse is some function that takes in once type and returns another. It is an actual code function, not just an IL operator. This usually takes longer to run, because it runs multiple lines of code.
For example, this code:
public void ParseExample()
{
string s = "7";
long l = long.Parse(s);
}
Runs the IL code:
call int64 [mscorlib]System.Int64::Parse(string)
In other words it calls an actual method. Internally, the Int64 type provides that method:
public static long Parse(String s) {
return Number.ParseInt64(s, NumberStyles.Integer, NumberFormatInfo.CurrentInfo);
}
And Number.Parse:
[System.Security.SecuritySafeCritical] // auto-generated
internal unsafe static Int64 ParseInt64(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt) {
Byte * numberBufferBytes = stackalloc Byte[NumberBuffer.NumberBufferBytes];
NumberBuffer number = new NumberBuffer(numberBufferBytes);
Int64 i = 0;
StringToNumber(value, options, ref number, numfmt, false);
if ((options & NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier) != 0) {
if (!HexNumberToInt64(ref number, ref i)) {
throw new OverflowException(Environment.GetResourceString("Overflow_Int64"));
}
}
else {
if (!NumberToInt64(ref number, ref i)) {
throw new OverflowException(Environment.GetResourceString("Overflow_Int64"));
}
}
return i;
}
And so on... so you can see it is actually doing a lot of code.
Now where things get more complicated is that although a cast is usually the fastest, classes can override the implicit and explicit cast operators. For example, if I write the class:
public class CastableClass
{
public int IntValue { get; set; }
public static explicit operator int(CastableClass castable)
{
return castable.IntValue;
}
}
I have overridden the explicit cast operator for int, so I can now do:
public void OverridedCastExample()
{
CastableClass cc = new CastableClass {IntValue = 7};
int i = (int)cc;
}
Which looks like a normal cast, but in actuality it calls my method that I defined on my class. The IL code is:
call int32 UnitTestProject1.CastableClass::op_Explicit(class UnitTestProject1.CastableClass)
So anyway, you typically want to cast whenever you can. Then parse if you can't.

Casting: or Parsing
A cast explicitly invokes the conversion operator from one type to another.
Casting variables is not simple. A complicated set of rules resolves casts. In some cases data is lost and the cast cannot be reversed. In others an exception is provoked in the execution engine.
int.Parse is a simplest method but it throws exceptions on invalid input.
TryParse
int.TryParse is one of the most useful methods for parsing integers in the C# language. This method works the same way as int.Parse.
int.TryParse has try and catch structure inside. So, it does not throw exceptions
Convert:
Converts a base data type to another base data type.
Convert.ToInt32, along with its siblings Convert.ToInt16 and Convert.ToInt64, is actually a static wrapper method for the int.Parse method.
Using TryParse instead of Convert or Cast is recommended by many programmers.
source:www.dotnetperls.com

Different people use it to mean different things. It need not be true outside .net world, but here is what I have understood in .net context reading Eric Lippert's blogs:
All transformations of types from one form to another can be called conversion. One way of categorizing may be
implicit -
a. representation changing (also called coercion)
int i = 0;
double d = i;
object o = i; // (specifically called boxing conversion)
IConvertible o = i; // (specifically called boxing conversion)
Requires implicit conversion operator, conversion always succeeds (implicit conversion operator should never throw), changes the referential identity of the object being converted.
b. representation preserving (also called implicit reference conversion)
string s = "";
object o = s;
IList<string> l = new List<string>();
Only valid for reference types, never changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion always succeeds, guaranteed at compile time, no runtime checks.
explicit (also called casting) -
a. representation changing
int i = 0;
enum e = (enum)i;
object o = i;
i = (int)o; // (specifically called unboxing conversion)
Requires explicit conversion operator, changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion may or may not succeed, does runtime check for compatibility.
b. representation preserving (also called explicit reference conversion)
object o = "";
string s = (string)o;
Only valid for reference types, never changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion may or may not succeed, does runtime check for compatibility.
While conversions are language level constructs, Parse is a vastly different thing in the sense it's framework level, or in other words they are custom methods written to get an output from an input, like int.Parse which takes in a string and returns an int.

Why can't an anonymous method be assigned to var?

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);

Can I capture a local variable into a LINQ Expression as a constant rather than a closure reference?

I'd like to say
int x = magic(), y = moremagic();
return i => i + (x/y);
and have the x be captured as a constant instead of a variable reference. The idea is that x will never change and so when the expression is later compiled, the compiler to can do constant folding and produce more efficient code -- i.e. calculating x/y once instead of on every call, via pointer dereferences into a closure record.
There is no way to mark x as readonly within a method, and the compiler is not clever enough to detect that it doesn't change after the creation of the expression.
I'd hate to have to build the expression by hand. Any brilliant ideas?
UPDATE: I ended up using the marvelous LinqKit to build a partial evaluator that will do the substitutions I want. The transform is only safe if you know that relevant references will not change, but it worked for my purposes. It is possible to restrict the partial evaluation only to direct members of your closure, which you control, by adding an extra check or two in there, which is fairly obvious on inspection of the sample code provided in the LinqKit.
/// <summary>Walks your expression and eagerly evaluates property/field members and substitutes them with constants.
/// You must be sure this is semantically correct, by ensuring those fields (e.g. references to captured variables in your closure)
/// will never change, but it allows the expression to be compiled more efficiently by turning constant numbers into true constants,
/// which the compiler can fold.</summary>
public class PartiallyEvaluateMemberExpressionsVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
protected override Expression VisitMemberAccess(MemberExpression m)
{
Expression exp = this.Visit(m.Expression);
if (exp == null || exp is ConstantExpression) // null=static member
{
object #object = exp == null ? null : ((ConstantExpression)exp).Value;
object value = null; Type type = null;
if (m.Member is FieldInfo)
{
FieldInfo fi = (FieldInfo)m.Member;
value = fi.GetValue(#object);
type = fi.FieldType;
}
else if (m.Member is PropertyInfo)
{
PropertyInfo pi = (PropertyInfo)m.Member;
if (pi.GetIndexParameters().Length != 0)
throw new ArgumentException("cannot eliminate closure references to indexed properties");
value = pi.GetValue(#object, null);
type = pi.PropertyType;
}
return Expression.Constant(value, type);
}
else // otherwise just pass it through
{
return Expression.MakeMemberAccess(exp, m.Member);
}
}
}

No there is no way to do this in C#. The compiler does not support capturing variables by value / const. Nor can you convert a non-const value into a const value at runtime in this manner.
Additionally the C# compiler only does constant folding during the initial compilation for known constant values. If it was possible to freeze a value at runtime into a constant it wouldn't participate in compiler constant folding because it happens at runtime.

The compiler doesn't do this type of "value caching". Constant folding is done at compile time for constants only, not for readonly fields and certainly not for local variables which do not have a known value at compile time.
You have to make this yourself, but it has to stay a closure reference (since the value is in fact not determinable at compile time, which is why it is likely to be put in the closure when the expression is built):
int x = magic(), y = moremagic();
int xy = x/y;
return i => i + xy;

x can't be a constant, because you're doing runtime magic to determine what it is. However, if you know that x and y don't change, try:
int x = magic(), y = moremagic();
int xOverY = x/y;
return i => i + xOverY;
I should also mention that even though the compiled IL code for i => i + (x/y) will show the division, the JIT compiler is almost certainly going to optimize this away.

One technique I used in vb2005 was to use a generic delegate factory to effect by-value closures. I only implemented it for subs rather than functions, but it could be done for functions as well. If extended in that way:
FunctionOf.NewInv()
would be a static function which would accept as parameters a function (described later), a T3, and a T4. The passed-in function should accept parameters of types T2, T3, and T4, and return a T1. The function returned by NewInv would accept one parameter of type T2 and call the passed-in function with that parameter and the ones given to NewInv.
The invocation would look something like:
return FunctionOf.NewInv((i,x,y) => i+x/y, x, y)

If you(like me) are creating some expression builder for SQL queries you may consirer the following: first create a class variable, make it a constant and then access it like this:
var constant= Expression.Constant(values);
var start = Expression.MakeMemberAccess(constant, values.GetMemberInfo(f => f.Start));
var end = Expression.MakeMemberAccess(constant, values.GetMemberInfo(f => f.End));
var more = Expression.GreaterThanOrEqual(memberBody, start);
var less = Expression.LessThanOrEqual(memberBody, end);