Develop Reference

Can I make a generic optional, defaulting to a certain class?

My question is related to Is there a reasonable approach to "default" type parameters in C# Generics?, but using an inner generic class that approach doesn't work.
Given code like this:
using System;
public class FooEventArgs<T> : EventArgs
{
// ... T properties and a constructor
}
public class Foo<T>
{
public delegate void EventHandler<FooEventArgs>(object sender, FooEventArgs<T> e);
public event EventHandler<FooEventArgs<T>> Changed
}
And with it being used like this:
public class User
{
public Foo<int> foo1;
public Foo<object> foo2;
public User()
{
foo1 = new Foo<int>();
foo2 = new Foo<object>();
foo1.Changed += foo1_Changed;
foo2.Changed += foo2_Changed;
}
protected void foo1_Changed(object sender, FooEventArgs<int> e) { ... }
protected void foo2_Changed(object sender, FooEventArgs<object> e) { ... }
}
Well, I'd rather like it if I could have the generic optional, as there will be many cases where I don't know what type something will be coming in. (Data is coming from an external system which has its own variable types, which are then converted into .NET types, but I run into situations where, for example, one remote data type may turn into one of a couple of .NET types, or where it is of the "any" type—thus object would be the only real answer for that case.)
The solution which immediately occurred to me was subclassing (it was also the primary suggestion in the question linked to earlier):
public class Foo : Foo<object>
{
public Foo(...) : base(...) { }
}
public class FooEventArgs : FooEventArgs<object>
{
public Foo(...) : base(...) { }
}
I then want to use it like this:
public class User
{
public Foo foo3;
public User()
{
foo3 = new Foo();
foo3.Changed += foo3_Changed;
}
protected void foo3_Changed(object sender, FooEventArgs e) { ... }
}
The problem is that it naturally won't work with foo3_Changed accepting FooEventArgs; it needs FooEventArgs<object>, as that's what the Foo.Changed event will get pass to it (as the value will come from Foo<object>).
Foo.cs(3,1415926): error CS0123: No overload for 'foo3_Changed' matches delegate 'FooLibrary.Foo<object>.EventHandler<FooLibrary.FooEventArgs<object>>'
Is there anything I can do about this, short of duplicating much of the class?
I did try one other thing: an implicit operator to convert from FooEventArgs<object> to FooEventArgs.
public static implicit operator FooEventArgs(FooEventArgs<object> e)
{
return new FooEventArgs(...);
}
This, unfortunately, doesn't seem to work, though I'm not quite clear on why:
EditBuffer.cs(13,37): error CS0553: 'FooLibrary.FooEventArgs.implicit operator FooLibrary.FooEventArgs(FooLibrary.FooEventArgs<object>)': user-defined conversions to or from a base class are not allowed
So then, once again, is there anything I can do about this, or am I correct in thinking that it's Tough Luck and I'll just have to be content using FooEventArgs<object> (and then I guess I may as well just use Foo<object>)?

I don't think there's much you can do about it, to be honest. You could make Foo doubly generic:
public class Foo<TData, TArgs> where TArgs : FooEventArgs<TData>
{
public delegate void EventHandler<TArgs>(object sender, TArgs e);
public event EventHandler<TArgs> Changed;
}
Then you could write:
public class Foo : Foo<object, FooEventArgs>
... but it's really making things very complicated for very little benefit.
I would also say that even though it's a bit more verbose to include the type argument, it does make it very clear - whereas inheritance can muddy the waters in various ways. I'd steer clear of class inheritance when you're not really trying to model behaviour specialization.
The reason your implicit conversion doesn't work has nothing to do with generics, by the way - as the error message states, you can't declare a conversion (implicit or explicit) which goes up or down the inheritance hierarchy. From the C# spec section 6.4.1:
C# permits only certain user-defined conversions to be declared. In particular, it is not possible to redefine an already existing implicit or explicit conversion.
(See that section for more details.)
As a side note, I find it more common to use inheritance the other way round for generics, typically with interfaces:
public interface IFoo
{
// Members which don't depend on the type parameter
}
public interface IFoo<T> : IFoo
{
// Members which all use T
}
That way code can receive just an IFoo without worrying about the generics side of things if they don't need to know T.
Unfortunately, that doesn't help you in your specific case.

Another interesting thing I just found is that you can create generic classes with the same name but different signatures.
class Foo<T> {
}
class Foo<T,T> {
}
then you can call either one of them like follows:
new Foo<string>();
new Foo<int,double>();
new Foo<string,int>();
I just thought it was interesting that despite both classes having the same name they can co-exist because they have different signatures.
I guess this is how the Tuple class works
public class Tuple<T1, T2, T3... T8>
{
...

Implementing few methods of a interface class-C#

Is it possible in C# to have a class that implement an interface that has 10 methods declared but implementing only 5 methods i.e defining only 5 methods of that interface??? Actually I have an interface that is implemented by 3 class and not all the methods are used by all the class so if I could exclude any method???
I have a need for this. It might sound as a bad design but it's not hopefully.
The thing is I have a collection of User Controls that needs to have common property and based on that only I am displaying them at run time. As it's dynamic I need to manage them for that I'm having Properties. Some Properties are needed by few class and not by all. And as the control increases this Properties might be increasing so as needed by one control I need to have in all without any use. just the dummy methods. For the same I thought if there is a way to avoid those methods in rest of the class it would be great. It sounds that there is no way other than having either the abstract class or dummy functions :-(

You can make it an abstract class and add the methods you don't want to implement as abstract methods.
In other words:
public interface IMyInterface
{
void SomeMethod();
void SomeOtherMethod();
}
public abstract class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
// Really implementing this
public void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
}
// Derived class must implement this
public abstract void SomeOtherMethod();
}
If these classes all need to be concrete, not abstract, then you'll have to throw a NotImplementedException/NotSupportedException from inside the methods. But a much better idea would be to split up the interface so that implementing classes don't have to do this.
Keep in mind that classes can implement multiple interfaces, so if some classes have some of the functionality but not all, then you want to have more granular interfaces:
public interface IFoo
{
void FooMethod();
}
public interface IBar()
{
void BarMethod();
}
public class SmallClass : IFoo
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
}
public class BigClass : IFoo, IBar
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
public void BarMethod() { ... }
}
This is probably the design you really should have.

Your breaking the use of interfaces. You should have for each common behaviour a seperate interface.

That is not possible. But what you can do is throw NotSupportedException or NotImplementedException for the methods you do not want to implement. Or you could use an abstract class instead of an interface. That way you could provide a default implementation for methods you choose not to override.
public interface IMyInterface
{
void Foo();
void Bar();
}
public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
public void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
}
public void Bar()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
Or...
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyBaseClass.Foo");
}
public virtual void Bar()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class MyClass : MyBaseClass
{
public override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyClass.Foo");
}
}

While I agree with #PoweRoy, you probably need to break your interface up into smaller parts you can probably use explicit interfaces to provider a cleaner public API to your interface implementations.
Eg:
public interface IPet
{
void Scratch();
void Bark();
void Meow();
}
public class Cat : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
public void Meow()
{
Console.WriteLine("Mew mew mew!");
}
void IPet.Bark()
{
throw NotSupportedException("Cats don't bark!");
}
}
public class Dog : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
void IPet.Meow()
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Dogs don't meow!");
}
public void Bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof! Woof!");
}
}
With the classes defined above:
var cat = new Cat();
cat.Scrach();
cat.Meow();
cat.Bark(); // Does not compile
var dog = new Dog();
dog.Scratch();
dog.Bark();
dog.Meow(); // Does not compile.
IPet pet = new Dog();
pet.Scratch();
pet.Bark();
pet.Meow(); // Compiles but throws a NotSupportedException at runtime.
// Note that the following also compiles but will
// throw NotSupportedException at runtime.
((IPet)cat).Bark();
((IPet)dog).Meow();

You can simply have the methods you don't want to impliment trow a 'NotImplementedException'. That way you can still impliment the interface as normal.

No, it isn't. You have to define all methods of the interface, but you are allowed to define them as abstract and leave the implementation to any derived class. You can't compile a class that says that implements an interface when in fact it doesn't.

Here is a simple stupid example of what I meant by different interfaces for different purposes. There is no interface for common properties as it would complicate example. Also this code lacks of many other good stuff (like suspend layout) to make it more clear. I haven't tried to compile this code so there might be a lot of typos but I hope that idea is clear.
interface IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
//check box that controls whether current control is visible
CheckBox VisibleCheckBox {get;}
}
class MySuperDuperUserControl : UserControl, IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
private readonly CheckBox _visibleCheckBox = new CheckBox();
public CheckBox VisibleCheckBox
{
get { return _visibleCheckBox; }
}
//other important stuff
}
//somewhere else
void BuildSomeUi(Form f, ICollection<UserControl> controls)
{
//Add "configuration" controls to special panel somewhere on the form
Panel configurationPanel = new Panel();
Panel mainPanel = new Panel();
//do some other lay out stuff
f.Add(configurationPanel);
f.Add(mainPanel);
foreach(UserControl c in controls)
{
//check whether control is configurable
IConfigurableOptionalControl configurableControl = c as IConfigurableVisibilityControl;
if(null != configurableControl)
{
CheckBox visibleConfigCB = configurableControl.VisibleCheckBox;
//do some other lay out stuff
configurationPanel.Add(visibleConfigCB);
}
//do some other lay out stuff
mainPanel.Add(c);
}
}

Let your Interface be implemented in an abstract class. The abstract class will implement 5 methods and keep remaining methods as virtual. All your 3 classes then should inherit from the abstract class. This was your client-code that uses 3 classes won't have to change.

I want to add dynamically the control to my form as I have that as my requirement. I found the code from here. I edited it as I needed. So I have the IService class that has the common properties. This is implemented by the User Controls. Which are shown at runtime in different project. Hmmm for that I have different common interface that has properties which are used by the project for displaying the controls. Few controls need some extra methods or peoperties for instance to implement a context menu based on user selection at runtime. i.e the values are there in the project which will be passed as the properties to the control and it will be displayed. Now this menu is there only for one control rest of them don't have this. So I thought if there is a way to not to have those methods in all class rather than one class. But it sounds that I need to either go for dummy methods or abstract class. hmmm dummy methods would be more preferable to me than the abstract class :-(

By implementing one of the SOLID principle which is "Interface Segregation Principle" in which Interface is broken into mutiple interfaces.

Apart from the above excellent suggestions on designing interfaces, if you really need to have implementation of some of the methods,an option is to use 'Extension methods'. Move the methods that need implementation outside of your interface. Create another static class that implements these as static methods with the first parameter as 'this interfaceObject'. This is similar to extension methods used in LINQ for IEnumerable interface.
public static class myExtension {
public static void myMethod( this ImyInterface obj, ... ) { .. }
...
}

Using Interface variables

I'm still trying to get a better understanding of Interfaces. I know about what they are and how to implement them in classes.
What I don't understand is when you create a variable that is of one of your Interface types:
IMyInterface somevariable;
Why would you do this? I don't understand how IMyInterface can be used like a class...for example to call methods, so:
somevariable.CallSomeMethod();
Why would you use an IMyInterface variable to do this?

You are not creating an instance of the interface - you are creating an instance of something that implements the interface.
The point of the interface is that it guarantees that what ever implements it will provide the methods declared within it.
So now, using your example, you could have:
MyNiftyClass : IMyInterface
{
public void CallSomeMethod()
{
//Do something nifty
}
}
MyOddClass : IMyInterface
{
public void CallSomeMethod()
{
//Do something odd
}
}
And now you have:
IMyInterface nifty = new MyNiftyClass()
IMyInterface odd = new MyOddClass()
Calling the CallSomeMethod method will now do either something nifty or something odd, and this becomes particulary useful when you are passing in using IMyInterface as the type.
public void ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(IMyInterface someObject)
{
someObject.CallSomeMethod();
}
Now, depending on whether you call the above method with a nifty or an odd class, you get different behaviour.
public void AnotherClass()
{
IMyInterface nifty = new MyNiftyClass()
IMyInterface odd = new MyOddClass()
// Pass in the nifty class to do something nifty
this.ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(nifty);
// Pass in the odd class to do something odd
this.ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(odd);
}
EDIT
This addresses what I think your intended question is - Why would you declare a variable to be of an interface type?
That is, why use:
IMyInterface foo = new MyConcreteClass();
in preference to:
MyConcreteClass foo = new MyConcreteClass();
Hopefully it is clear why you would use the interface when declaring a method signature, but that leaves the question about locally scoped variables:
public void AMethod()
{
// Why use this?
IMyInterface foo = new MyConcreteClass();
// Why not use this?
MyConcreteClass bar = new MyConcreteClass();
}
Usually there is no technical reason why the interface is preferred. I usually use the interface because:
I typically inject dependencies so the polymorphism is needed
Using the interface clearly states my intent to only use members of the interface
The one place where you would technically need the interface is where you are utilising the polymorphism, such as creating your variable using a factory or (as I say above) using dependency injection.
Borrowing an example from itowlson, using concrete declaration you could not do this:
public void AMethod(string input)
{
IMyInterface foo;
if (input == "nifty")
{
foo = new MyNiftyClass();
}
else
{
foo = new MyOddClass();
}
foo.CallSomeMethod();
}

Because this:
public void ReadItemsList(List<string> items);
public void ReadItemsArray(string[] items);
can become this:
public void ReadItems(IEnumerable<string> items);
Edit
Think of it like this:
You have to be able to do this.
rather than:
You have to be this.
Essentially this is a contract between the method and it's callers.

Using interface variables is the ONLY way to allow handler methods to be written which can accept data from objects that have different base classes.
This is about as clear as anyone is going to get.

An interface is used so you do not need to worry about what class implements the interface. An example of this being useful is when you have a factory method that returns a concrete implementation that may be different depending on the environment you are running in. It also allows an API designer to define the API while allowing 3rd parties to implement the API in any way they see fit. Sun does this with it's cryptographic API's for Java.
public interface Foo {
}
public class FooFactory {
public static Foo getInstance() {
if(os == 'Windows') return new WinFoo();
else if(os == 'OS X') return new MacFoo();
else return new GenricFoo();
}
}
Your code that uses the factory only needs to know about Foo, not any of the specific implementations.

I was in same position and took me few days to figure out why do we have to use interface variable.
IDepartments rep = new DepartmentsImpl();
why not
DepartmentsImpl rep = new DepartmentsImpl();
Imagine If a class implements two interfaces that contain a member with the same signature, then implementing that member on the class will cause both interfaces to use that member as their implementation.
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
SampleClass sc = new SampleClass();
IControl ctrl = (IControl)sc;
ISurface srfc = (ISurface)sc;
// The following lines all call the same method.
sc.Paint();
ctrl.Paint();
srfc.Paint();
}
}
interface IControl
{
void Paint();
}
interface ISurface
{
void Paint();
}
class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface
{
// Both ISurface.Paint and IControl.Paint call this method.
public void Paint()
{
Console.WriteLine("Paint method in SampleClass");
}
}
// Output:
// Paint method in SampleClass
// Paint method in SampleClass
// Paint method in SampleClass
If the two interface members do not perform the same function, however, this can lead to an incorrect implementation of one or both of the interfaces.
public class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface
{
void IControl.Paint()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("IControl.Paint");
}
void ISurface.Paint()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("ISurface.Paint");
}
}
The class member IControl.Paint is only available through the IControl interface, and ISurface.Paint is only available through ISurface. Both method implementations are separate, and neither is available directly on the class. For example:
IControl c = new SampleClass();
ISurface s = new SampleClass();
s.Paint();
Please do correct me if i am wrong as i am still learning this Interface concept.

Lets say you have class Boat, Car, Truck, Plane.
These all share a common method TakeMeThere(string destination)
You would have an interface:
public interface ITransportation
{
public void TakeMeThere(string destination);
}
then your class:
public class Boat : ITransportation
{
public void TakeMeThere(string destination) // From ITransportation
{
Console.WriteLine("Going to " + destination);
}
}
What you're saying here, is that my class Boat will do everything ITransportation has told me too.
And then when you want to make software for a transport company. You could have a method
Void ProvideServiceForClient(ITransportation transportationMethod, string whereTheyWantToGo)
{
transportationMethod.TakeMeThere(whereTheyWantToGo); // Cause ITransportation has this method
}
So it doesn't matter which type of transportation they want, because we know it can TakeMeThere

This is not specific to C#,so i recommend to move to some othere flag.
for your question,
the main reason why we opt for interface is to provide a protocol between two components(can be a dll,jar or any othere component).
Please refer below
public class TestClass
{
static void Main()
{
IMyInterface ob1, obj2;
ob1 = getIMyInterfaceObj();
obj2 = getIMyInterfaceObj();
Console.WriteLine(ob1.CallSomeMethod());
Console.WriteLine(obj2.CallSomeMethod());
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static bool isfirstTime = true;
private static IMyInterface getIMyInterfaceObj()
{
if (isfirstTime)
{
isfirstTime = false;
return new ImplementingClass1();
}
else
{
return new ImplementingClass2();
}
}
}
public class ImplementingClass1 : IMyInterface
{
public ImplementingClass1()
{
}
#region IMyInterface Members
public bool CallSomeMethod()
{
return true;
}
#endregion
}
public class ImplementingClass2 : IMyInterface
{
public ImplementingClass2()
{
}
#region IMyInterface Members
public bool CallSomeMethod()
{
return false;
}
#endregion
}
public interface IMyInterface
{
bool CallSomeMethod();
}
Here the main method does not know about the classes still it is able to get different behaviour using the interface.

The purpose of the Interface is to define a contract between several objects, independent of specific implementation.
So you would usually use it when you have an Intrace ISomething, and a specific implementation
class Something : ISomething
So the Interface varialbe would come to use when you instantiate a contract:
ISomething myObj = new Something();
myObj.SomeFunc();
You should also read interface C#
Update:
I will explaing the logic of using an Interface for the variable and not the class itself by a (real life) example:
I have a generic repositor interace:
Interface IRepository {
void Create();
void Update();
}
And i have 2 seperate implementations:
class RepositoryFile : interface IRepository {}
class RepositoryDB : interface IRepository {}
Each class has an entirely different internal implementation.
Now i have another object, a Logger, that uses an already instansiated repository to do his writing. This object, doesn't care how the Repository is implemented, so he just implements:
void WriteLog(string Log, IRepository oRep);
BTW, this can also be implemented by using standard classes inheritance. But the difference between using interfaces and classes inheritance is another discussion.
For a slightly more details discussion on the difference between abstract classes and interfaces see here.

Say, for example, you have two classes: Book and Newspaper. You can read each of these, but it wouldn't really make sense for these two to inherit from a common superclass. So they will both implement the IReadable interface:
public interface IReadable
{
public void Read();
}
Now say you're writing an application that will read books and newspapers for the user. The user can select a book or newspaper from a list, and that item will be read to the user.
The method in your application that reads to the user will take this Book or Newspaper as a parameter. This might look like this in code:
public static void ReadItem(IReadable item)
{
item.Read();
}
Since the parameter is an IReadable, we know that the object has the method Read(), thus we call it to read it to the user. It doesn't matter whether this is a Book, Newspaper, or anything else that implements IReadable. The individual classes implement exactly how each item will be read by implementing the Read() method, since it will most likely be different for the different classes.
Book's Read() might look like this:
public void Read()
{
this.Open();
this.TurnToPage(1);
while(!this.AtLastPage)
{
ReadText(this.CurrentPage.Text);
this.TurnPage();
}
this.Close();
}
Newspaper's Read() would likely be a little different:
public void Read()
{
while(!this.OnBackPage)
{
foreach(Article article in this.CurrentPage.Articles)
{
ReadText(article.Text);
}
}
}
The point is that the object contained by a variable that is an interface type is guaranteed to have a specific set of methods on it, even if the possible classes of the object are not related in any other way. This allows you to write code that will apply to a variety of classes that have common operations that can be performed on them.

No, it is not possible. Designers did not provide a way. Of course, it is of common sense also. Because interface contains only abstract methods and as abstract methods do not have a body (of implementation code), we cannot create an object..
Suppose even if it is permitted, what is the use. Calling the abstract method with object does not yield any purpose as no output. No functionality to abstract methods.
Then, what is the use of interfaces in Java design and coding. They can be used as prototypes from which you can develop new classes easily. They work like templates for other classes that implement interface just like a blue print to construct a building.

I believe everyone is answering the polymorphic reason for using an interface and David Hall touches on partially why you would reference it as an interface instead of the actual object name. Of course, being limited to the interface members etc is helpful but the another answer is dependency injection / instantiation.
When you engineer your application it is typically cleaner, easier to manage, and more flexible if you do so utilizing dependency injection. It feels backwards at first if you've never done it but when you start backtracking you'll wish you had.
Dependency injection normally works by allowing a class to instantiate and control the dependencies and you just rely on the interface of the object you need.
Example:
Layer the application first. Tier 1 logic, tier 2 interface, tier 3 dependency injection. (Everyone has their own way, this is just for show).
In the logic layer you reference the interfaces and dependency layer and then finally you create logic based on only the interfaces of foreign objects.
Here we go:
public IEmployee GetEmployee(string id)
{
IEmployee emp = di.GetInstance<List<IEmployee>>().Where(e => e.Id == id).FirstOrDefault();
emp?.LastAccessTimeStamp = DateTime.Now;
return emp;
}
Notice above how we use di.GetInstance to get an object from our dependency. Our code in that tier will never know or care about the Employee object. In fact if it changes in other code it will never affect us here. If the interface of IEmployee changes then we may need to make code changes.
The point is, IEmployee emp = never really knows what the actual object is but does know the interface and how to work with it. With that in mind, this is when you want to use an interface as opposed to an object becase we never know or have access to the object.
This is summarized.. Hopefully it helps.

This is a fundamental concept in object-oriented programming -- polymorphism. (wikipedia)
The short answer is that by using the interface in Class A, you can give Class A any implementation of IMyInterface.
This is also a form of loose coupling (wikipedia) -- where you have many classes, but they do not rely explicitly on one another -- only on an abstract notion of the set of properties and methods that they provide (the interface).

Generics, Inheritance and the new operator

Here is something that I find myself using from time to time and I just wanted to get some feedback on the merits of the practice.
Lets say that I have a base class:
abstract class RealBase {
protected RealBase(object arg) {
Arg = arg;
}
public object Arg { get; private set; }
public abstract void DoThatThingYouDo();
}
I often create a second base class that is generic that handles the cast from the "object" type in the base class to the "T" type, like this:
abstract class GenericBase<T> : RealBase {
protected GenericBase(T arg)
: base( arg ) {
}
new public T Arg { get { return (T) base.Arg; } }
}
This allows me to access "Arg" as its explicit type without a cast operation:
class Concrete : GenericBase<string> {
public Concrete( string arg )
: base( arg ) {
}
public override void DoThatThingYouDo() {
// NOTE: Arg is type string. No cast necessary.
char[] chars = Arg.ToLowerInvariant().ToCharArray();
// Blah( blah, blah );
// [...]
}
}
All the while being able to also work with it via the "RealBase":
class Usage {
public void UseIt() {
RealBase rb = new Concrete( "The String Arg" );
DoTheThing(rb);
}
private void DoTheThing(RealBase thingDoer) {
rb.DoThatThingYouDo();
}
}
It is assumed that there are many other "Concrete" types... not just the one.
Here are my questions/concerns:
Am I "off my rocker" for using
an approach like this?
Are there
any obvious drawbacks/caveats to
using this approach?
What about
that "new public T..." in
GenericBase? Good/bad idea? Awkward?
Any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I don't have any objection to that explicitly as long as you're disciplined enough to only use the generic base class as a helper only and never downcast to it. If you start referencing RealBase and GenericBase and ConcreteClass all over the place things tend to get real tightly coupled really quickly.
As a matter of fact, I would recommend kicking it up a notch and introducing an interface
interface IReal {
void DoThatThingYouDo();
}
And leaving the base class out of it entirely (basically never reference it except when declaring a derived class). Just a tip that helps me increase the flexibility of my code.
Oh, and if you do use an interface, don't just declare it in the base classes, declare it on the concrete ones:
class MyConcrete: BaseClass<MyConcrete>, IReal {
...
}
as a reminder, the base class is not important only what it does is important!

Well, we've now got an inheritance tree three levels deep, but you haven't given any particular reason for doing this.
Personally I rarely use inheritance (or rather, rarely design my own inheritance hierarchies beyond implementing interfaces and deriving directly from object). Inheritance is a powerful tool, but one which is difficult to use effectively.
If this gives you some clear advantage over other approaches, that's fine - but I would consider the complexity you're adding for someone reading the code. Do they really want to have to consider three levels of hierarchy, with two properties of the same name? (I would rename GenericBase.Arg to GenericBase.GenericArg or something like that.)

I think you would be able to get the same functionality you would like by using an interface as opposed to dual abstract base classes, consider this:
public interface IAmReal
{
void DoThatThingYouDo();
...
}
abstract class GenericBase<T> : IAmReal
{
protected GenericBase<T>(T arg)
{
Arg = arg;
}
public T Arg { get; set; }
public abstract void DoThatThingYouDo();
}
class MyConcrete : GenericBase<string>
{
public MyConcrete(string s) : base(s) {}
public override void DoThatThingYouDo()
{
char[] chars = Arg.ToLowerInvariant().ToCharArray();
...
}
}
class Usage
{
public void UseIt()
{
IAmReal rb = new MyConcrete( "The String Arg" );
DoTheThing(rb);
}
private void DoTheThing(IAmReal thingDoer)
{
rb.DoThatThingYouDo();
}
}

I don't think you're off your rocker. See Curiously Recurring Template for something even more complex.

Personally I would strongly advise not to use the new operator, since it may lead to confusion. Actually I myself have recently had such a problem, but I went with base class abstract suffixed with AsObject, i.e.:
public BaseClass{
public abstract object ValueAsObject {get;set;}
}
and generic class along the line:
public BaseClass<T> : BaseClass {
public T Value {get;set;}
public override object ValueAsObject {
get{return (T)this.Value;}
set{this.Value = value;} // or conversion, e.g. string -> int
}
Georg Mauer's proposal of interface for DoThatThingYouDo is also good.

Am I the only one who thinks inheritance should be avoided as far as it can? I've seen different implementations when inheritance have caused bizarre problems, not only when trying to downcast. Interfaces are the savior! I'm not saying that inheritance should always be avoided, but by just looking at the specified code I can't see the advantages of this inheritance tree over regular interfaces.

C# - using polymorphism in classes I didn't write

What is the best way to implement polymorphic behavior in classes that I can't modify? I currently have some code like:
if(obj is ClassA) {
// ...
} else if(obj is ClassB) {
// ...
} else if ...
The obvious answer is to add a virtual method to the base class, but unfortunately the code is in a different assembly and I can't modify it. Is there a better way to handle this than the ugly and slow code above?

Hmmm... seems more suited to Adapter.
public interface ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
void DoWhatYouWant();
}
public class MyA : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassA _actualA;
public MyA( ClassA actualA )
{
_actualA = actualA;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualA.DoWhatADoes();
}
}
public class MyB : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassB _actualB;
public MyB( ClassB actualB )
{
_actualB = actualB;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualB.DoWhatBDoes();
}
}
Seems like a lot of code, but it will make the client code a lot closer to what you want. Plus it'll give you a chance to think about what interface you're actually using.

Check out the Visitor pattern. This lets you come close to adding virtual methods to a class without changing the class. You need to use an extension method with a dynamic cast if the base class you're working with doesn't have a Visit method. Here's some sample code:
public class Main
{
public static void Example()
{
Base a = new GirlChild();
var v = new Visitor();
a.Visit(v);
}
}
static class Ext
{
public static void Visit(this object b, Visitor v)
{
((dynamic)v).Visit((dynamic)b);
}
}
public class Visitor
{
public void Visit(Base b)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void Visit(BoyChild b)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a boy!");
}
public void Visit(GirlChild g)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a girl!");
}
}
//Below this line are the classes you don't have to change.
public class Base
{
}
public class BoyChild : Base
{
}
public class GirlChild : Base
{
}

I would say that the standard approach here is to wrap the class you want to "inherit" as a protected instance variable and then emulate all the non-private members (method/properties/events/etc.) of the wrapped class in your container class. You can then mark this class and its appropiate members as virtual so that you can use standard polymorphism features with it.
Here's an example of what I mean. ClosedClass is the class contained in the assembly whose code to which you have no access.
public virtual class WrapperClass : IClosedClassInterface1, IClosedClassInterface2
{
protected ClosedClass object;
public ClosedClass()
{
object = new ClosedClass();
}
public void Method1()
{
object.Method1();
}
public void Method2()
{
object.Method2();
}
}
If whatever assembly you are referencing were designed well, then all the types/members that you might ever want to access would be marked appropiately (abstract, virtual, sealed), but indeed this is unfortunately not the case (sometimes you can even experienced this issue with the Base Class Library). In my opinion, the wrapper class is the way to go here. It does have its benefits (even when the class from which you want to derive is inheritable), namely removing/changing the modifier of methods you don't want the user of your class to have access to. The ReadOnlyCollection<T> in the BCL is a pretty good example of this.

Take a look at the Decorator pattern. Noldorin actually explained it without giving the name of the pattern.
Decorator is the way of extending behavior without inheriting. The only thing I would change in Noldorin's code is the fact that the constructor should receive an instance of the object you are decorating.

Extension methods provide an easy way to add additional method signatures to existing classes. This requires the 3.5 framework.
Create a static utility class and add something like this:
public static void DoSomething(this ClassA obj, int param1, string param2)
{
//do something
}
Add a reference to the utility class on the page, and this method will appear as a member of ClassA. You can overload existing methods or create new ones this way.