C# - Can't declare delegate within a method

C# - Can't declare delegate within a method - c#

I'm really blanking out here.
I'm wondering why I can't declare a delegate type within a method, but rather I have to do it at a class level.
namespace delegate_learning
{
class Program
{
// Works fine
public delegate void anon_delgate(int i);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HaveFun();
Console.Read();
}
public static void HaveFun()
{
// Throws an error :/
//delegate void anon_delgate(int i);
anon_delgate ad = delegate(int i) { Console.WriteLine(i.ToString());};
}
}
}
Edit: I'm researching Lambda Expressions and backing up into how it was before Lambdas, for my own personal knowledge.

// Throws an error :/
delegate void anon_delgate(int i);
It throws an error, because it's a type definition, not a variable declaration. Any type definition is not allowed inside method. It's allowed only at class scope, or namespace scope.
namespace A
{
delegate void X(int i); //allowed
public class B
{
delegate void Y(int i); //also allowed
}
}
By the way, why don't you write this:
anon_delgate ad = i => Console.WriteLine(i.ToString());
It's called lambda expression.

You can't declare any type inside a method. So let's consider the question "why can I not declare a type inside a method in C#?"
The answer to questions of this form is always the same. In order for you to be able to do something in C#, the following things all have to happen:
Someone has to think of the feature
Someone has to design the feature
Someone has to write the specification of the feature
Someone has to implement that specification
Someone has to test the implementation
Someone has to document the feature (and translate the documentation into a dozen different languages.)
Somehow the implementation code has to get into a "vehicle" by which it can be shipped to customers.
So far, of the things on that list only the first one has happened. The rest of them haven't ever happened, so you can't use that feature in C#.
You seem to imply that the default state of a feature is "implemented" and that we have to come up with some reason to make it not implemented. I assure you that's not the case; the default state of all possible features is "not implemented", and we have to have a justification for spending the time, money and effort it takes to implement a feature. So far no one has made a compelling case that local type declarations are worthwhile; if you'd like to try to make a compelling case, I'd love to hear it.

Declaring a delegate inside a method would be like declaring a class inside a method because the compiler rewrites the delegate declaration onto a class declaration.
This is why you can't do this while it's perfectly valid do assign to a delegate type.

Being able to create arbitrary delegates any time you want is useful, but giving them distinct but anonymous types seems far less useful.
With or without lambdas, you could just replace anon_delgate ad with Action<int>. Since nobody outside method can see anon_delegate, its existence doesn't add extraordinary value. You want to define the delegate type locally, but you could encode any information about the purpose of the delegate inside the variable's name rather than in the variable's type. The dozens of already defined* Action and Func delegates make it very rare that you'll be unable to find a delegate that suits your needs.
In short, I see this feature as adding some heavy costs per Eric, but don't see it as adding enough benefits to offset those costs, nevermind offsetting the additional confusion that comes from providing another feature that might confuse developers.
This feature doesn't add any expressive power to the language, its nonexistence is easily worked around, and I think would waste more developer time (by making C# harder to learn/use) than it would save.
*(well, less of them in older versions of C#, but asking why a feature isn't in an older version of C# when it could be useful is pretty unexciting when the answer is, "wow, that is useful. We added it to the next version.")

Why don't you just use lambda expressions?
Action<int> ad = i => Console.WriteLine(i.ToString());

Because a delegate is a public method signature intended for a user of the class to comply with on their end. It's a way of saying "if you expose this method with these parameters, I can call it when necessary".
Method internals are not exposed outside of the class - just the signature - so declaring a method signature within what is private to the class doesn't make sense.

Related

Difference ways of calling methods within the same class in C# [duplicate]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I was curious about how other people use the this keyword. I tend to use it in constructors, but I may also use it throughout the class in other methods. Some examples:
In a constructor:
public Light(Vector v)
{
this.dir = new Vector(v);
}
Elsewhere
public void SomeMethod()
{
Vector vec = new Vector();
double d = (vec * vec) - (this.radius * this.radius);
}

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but it doesn't matter.
Seriously.
Look at the things that are important: your project, your code, your job, your personal life. None of them are going to have their success rest on whether or not you use the "this" keyword to qualify access to fields. The this keyword will not help you ship on time. It's not going to reduce bugs, it's not going to have any appreciable effect on code quality or maintainability. It's not going to get you a raise, or allow you to spend less time at the office.
It's really just a style issue. If you like "this", then use it. If you don't, then don't. If you need it to get correct semantics then use it. The truth is, every programmer has his own unique programing style. That style reflects that particular programmer's notions of what the "most aesthetically pleasing code" should look like. By definition, any other programmer who reads your code is going to have a different programing style. That means there is always going to be something you did that the other guy doesn't like, or would have done differently. At some point some guy is going to read your code and grumble about something.
I wouldn't fret over it. I would just make sure the code is as aesthetically pleasing as possible according to your own tastes. If you ask 10 programmers how to format code, you are going to get about 15 different opinions. A better thing to focus on is how the code is factored. Are things abstracted right? Did I pick meaningful names for things? Is there a lot of code duplication? Are there ways I can simplify stuff? Getting those things right, I think, will have the greatest positive impact on your project, your code, your job, and your life. Coincidentally, it will probably also cause the other guy to grumble the least. If your code works, is easy to read, and is well factored, the other guy isn't going to be scrutinizing how you initialize fields. He's just going to use your code, marvel at it's greatness, and then move on to something else.

There are several usages of this keyword in C#.
To qualify members hidden by similar name
To have an object pass itself as a parameter to other methods
To have an object return itself from a method
To declare indexers
To declare extension methods
To pass parameters between constructors
To internally reassign value type (struct) value.
To invoke an extension method on the current instance
To cast itself to another type
To chain constructors defined in the same class
You can avoid the first usage by not having member and local variables with the same name in scope, for example by following common naming conventions and using properties (Pascal case) instead of fields (camel case) to avoid colliding with local variables (also camel case). In C# 3.0 fields can be converted to properties easily by using auto-implemented properties.

I only use it when absolutely necessary, ie, when another variable is shadowing another. Such as here:
class Vector3
{
float x;
float y;
float z;
public Vector3(float x, float y, float z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
}
Or as Ryan Fox points out, when you need to pass this as a parameter. (Local variables have precedence over member variables)

Personally, I try to always use this when referring to member variables. It helps clarify the code and make it more readable. Even if there is no ambiguity, someone reading through my code for the first time doesn't know that, but if they see this used consistently, they will know if they are looking at a member variable or not.

I use it every time I refer to an instance variable, even if I don't need to. I think it makes the code more clear.

I can't believe all of the people that say using it always is a "best practice" and such.
Use "this" when there is ambiguity, as in Corey's example or when you need to pass the object as a parameter, as in Ryan's example. There is no reason to use it otherwise because being able to resolve a variable based on the scope chain should be clear enough that qualifying variables with it should be unnecessary.
EDIT: The C# documentation on "this" indicates one more use, besides the two I mentioned, for the "this" keyword - for declaring indexers
EDIT: #Juan: Huh, I don't see any inconsistency in my statements - there are 3 instances when I would use the "this" keyword (as documented in the C# documentation), and those are times when you actually need it. Sticking "this" in front of variables in a constructor when there is no shadowing going on is simply a waste of keystrokes and a waste of my time when reading it, it provides no benefit.

I use it whenever StyleCop tells me to. StyleCop must be obeyed. Oh yes.

Any time you need a reference to the current object.
One particularly handy scenario is when your object is calling a function and wants to pass itself into it.
Example:
void onChange()
{
screen.draw(this);
}

I tend to use it everywhere as well, just to make sure that it is clear that it is instance members that we are dealing with.

I use it anywhere there might be ambiguity (obviously). Not just compiler ambiguity (it would be required in that case), but also ambiguity for someone looking at the code.

Another somewhat rare use for the this keyword is when you need to invoke an explicit interface implementation from within the implementing class. Here's a contrived example:
class Example : ICloneable
{
private void CallClone()
{
object clone = ((ICloneable)this).Clone();
}
object ICloneable.Clone()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}

Here's when I use it:
Accessing Private Methods from within the class (to differentiate)
Passing the current object to another method (or as a sender object, in case of an event)
When creating extension methods :D
I don't use this for Private fields because I prefix private field variable names with an underscore (_).

[C++]
I agree with the "use it when you have to" brigade. Decorating code unnecessarily with this isn't a great idea because the compiler won't warn you when you forget to do it. This introduces potential confusion for people expecting this to always be there, i.e. they'll have to think about it.
So, when would you use it? I've just had a look around some random code and found these examples (I'm not passing judgement on whether these are good things to do or otherwise):
Passing "yourself" to a function.
Assigning "yourself" to a pointer or something like that.
Casting, i.e. up/down casting (safe or otherwise), casting away constness, etc.
Compiler enforced disambiguation.

You should always use it, I use it to diferantiate private fields and parameters (because our naming conventions state that we don't use prefixes for member and parameter names (and they are based on information found on the internet, so I consider that a best practice))

I use it when, in a function that accepts a reference to an object of the same type, I want to make it perfectly clear which object I'm referring to, where.
For example
class AABB
{
// ... members
bool intersects( AABB other )
{
return other.left() < this->right() &&
this->left() < other.right() &&
// +y increases going down
other.top() < this->bottom() &&
this->top() < other.bottom() ;
}
} ;
(vs)
class AABB
{
bool intersects( AABB other )
{
return other.left() < right() &&
left() < other.right() &&
// +y increases going down
other.top() < bottom() &&
top() < other.bottom() ;
}
} ;
At a glance which AABB does right() refer to? The this adds a bit of a clarifier.

In Jakub Šturc's answer his #5 about passing data between contructors probably could use a little explanation. This is in overloading constructors and is the one case where use of this is mandatory. In the following example we can call the parameterized constructor from the parameterless constructor with a default parameter.
class MyClass {
private int _x
public MyClass() : this(5) {}
public MyClass(int v) { _x = v;}
}
I've found this to be a particularly useful feature on occasion.

I got in the habit of using it liberally in Visual C++ since doing so would trigger IntelliSense ones I hit the '>' key, and I'm lazy. (and prone to typos)
But I've continued to use it, since I find it handy to see that I'm calling a member function rather than a global function.

I tend to underscore fields with _ so don't really ever need to use this. Also R# tends to refactor them away anyway...

I pretty much only use this when referencing a type property from inside the same type. As another user mentioned, I also underscore local fields so they are noticeable without needing this.

I use it only when required, except for symmetric operations which due to single argument polymorphism have to be put into methods of one side:
boolean sameValue (SomeNum other) {
return this.importantValue == other.importantValue;
}

[C++]
this is used in the assignment operator where most of the time you have to check and prevent strange (unintentional, dangerous, or just a waste of time for the program) things like:
A a;
a = a;
Your assignment operator will be written:
A& A::operator=(const A& a) {
if (this == &a) return *this;
// we know both sides of the = operator are different, do something...
return *this;
}

this on a C++ compiler
The C++ compiler will silently lookup for a symbol if it does not find it immediately. Sometimes, most of the time, it is good:
using the mother class' method if you did not overloaded it in the child class.
promoting a value of a type into another type
But sometimes, You just don't want the compiler to guess. You want the compiler to pick-up the right symbol and not another.
For me, those times are when, within a method, I want to access to a member method or member variable. I just don't want some random symbol picked up just because I wrote printf instead of print. this->printf would not have compiled.
The point is that, with C legacy libraries (§), legacy code written years ago (§§), or whatever could happen in a language where copy/pasting is an obsolete but still active feature, sometimes, telling the compiler to not play wits is a great idea.
These are the reasons I use this.
(§) it's still a kind of mystery to me, but I now wonder if the fact you include the <windows.h> header in your source, is the reason all the legacy C libraries symbols will pollute your global namespace
(§§) realizing that "you need to include a header, but that including this header will break your code because it uses some dumb macro with a generic name" is one of those russian roulette moments of a coder's life

'this.' helps find members on 'this' class with a lot of members (usually due to a deep inheritance chain).
Hitting CTRL+Space doesn't help with this, because it also includes types; where-as 'this.' includes members ONLY.
I usually delete it once I have what I was after: but this is just my style breaking through.
In terms of style, if you are a lone-ranger -- you decide; if you work for a company stick to the company policy (look at the stuff in source control and see what other people are doing). In terms of using it to qualify members, neither is right or wrong. The only wrong thing is inconsistency -- that is the golden rule of style. Leave the nit-picking others. Spend your time pondering real coding problems -- and obviously coding -- instead.

I use it every time I can. I believe it makes the code more readable, and more readable code equals less bugs and more maintainability.

When you are many developers working on the same code base, you need some code guidelines/rules. Where I work we've desided to use 'this' on fields, properties and events.
To me it makes good sense to do it like this, it makes the code easier to read when you differentiate between class-variables and method-variables.

It depends on the coding standard I'm working under. If we are using _ to denote an instance variable then "this" becomes redundant. If we are not using _ then I tend to use this to denote instance variable.

I use it to invoke Intellisense just like JohnMcG, but I'll go back and erase "this->" when I'm done. I follow the Microsoft convention of prefixing member variables with "m_", so leaving it as documentation would just be redundant.

1 - Common Java setter idiom:
public void setFoo(int foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
2 - When calling a function with this object as a parameter
notifier.addListener(this);

There is one use that has not already been mentioned in C++, and that is not to refer to the own object or disambiguate a member from a received variable.
You can use this to convert a non-dependent name into an argument dependent name inside template classes that inherit from other templates.
template <typename T>
struct base {
void f() {}
};
template <typename T>
struct derived : public base<T>
{
void test() {
//f(); // [1] error
base<T>::f(); // quite verbose if there is more than one argument, but valid
this->f(); // f is now an argument dependent symbol
}
}
Templates are compiled with a two pass mechanism. During the first pass, only non-argument dependent names are resolved and checked, while dependent names are checked only for coherence, without actually substituting the template arguments.
At that step, without actually substituting the type, the compiler has almost no information of what base<T> could be (note that specialization of the base template can turn it into completely different types, even undefined types), so it just assumes that it is a type. At this stage the non-dependent call f that seems just natural to the programmer is a symbol that the compiler must find as a member of derived or in enclosing namespaces --which does not happen in the example-- and it will complain.
The solution is turning the non-dependent name f into a dependent name. This can be done in a couple of ways, by explicitly stating the type where it is implemented (base<T>::f --adding the base<T> makes the symbol dependent on T and the compiler will just assume that it will exist and postpones the actual check for the second pass, after argument substitution.
The second way, much sorter if you inherit from templates that have more than one argument, or long names, is just adding a this-> before the symbol. As the template class you are implementing does depend on an argument (it inherits from base<T>) this-> is argument dependent, and we get the same result: this->f is checked in the second round, after template parameter substitution.

You should not use "this" unless you absolutely must.
There IS a penalty associated with unnecessary verbosity. You should strive for code that is exactly as long as it needs to be, and no longer.

confused about the keyword this C# [duplicate]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I was curious about how other people use the this keyword. I tend to use it in constructors, but I may also use it throughout the class in other methods. Some examples:
In a constructor:
public Light(Vector v)
{
this.dir = new Vector(v);
}
Elsewhere
public void SomeMethod()
{
Vector vec = new Vector();
double d = (vec * vec) - (this.radius * this.radius);
}

There are several usages of this keyword in C#.
To qualify members hidden by similar name
To have an object pass itself as a parameter to other methods
To have an object return itself from a method
To declare indexers
To declare extension methods
To pass parameters between constructors
To internally reassign value type (struct) value.
To invoke an extension method on the current instance
To cast itself to another type
To chain constructors defined in the same class
You can avoid the first usage by not having member and local variables with the same name in scope, for example by following common naming conventions and using properties (Pascal case) instead of fields (camel case) to avoid colliding with local variables (also camel case). In C# 3.0 fields can be converted to properties easily by using auto-implemented properties.

I only use it when absolutely necessary, ie, when another variable is shadowing another. Such as here:
class Vector3
{
float x;
float y;
float z;
public Vector3(float x, float y, float z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
}
Or as Ryan Fox points out, when you need to pass this as a parameter. (Local variables have precedence over member variables)

Personally, I try to always use this when referring to member variables. It helps clarify the code and make it more readable. Even if there is no ambiguity, someone reading through my code for the first time doesn't know that, but if they see this used consistently, they will know if they are looking at a member variable or not.

I use it every time I refer to an instance variable, even if I don't need to. I think it makes the code more clear.

I can't believe all of the people that say using it always is a "best practice" and such.
Use "this" when there is ambiguity, as in Corey's example or when you need to pass the object as a parameter, as in Ryan's example. There is no reason to use it otherwise because being able to resolve a variable based on the scope chain should be clear enough that qualifying variables with it should be unnecessary.
EDIT: The C# documentation on "this" indicates one more use, besides the two I mentioned, for the "this" keyword - for declaring indexers
EDIT: #Juan: Huh, I don't see any inconsistency in my statements - there are 3 instances when I would use the "this" keyword (as documented in the C# documentation), and those are times when you actually need it. Sticking "this" in front of variables in a constructor when there is no shadowing going on is simply a waste of keystrokes and a waste of my time when reading it, it provides no benefit.

I use it whenever StyleCop tells me to. StyleCop must be obeyed. Oh yes.

Any time you need a reference to the current object.
One particularly handy scenario is when your object is calling a function and wants to pass itself into it.
Example:
void onChange()
{
screen.draw(this);
}

I tend to use it everywhere as well, just to make sure that it is clear that it is instance members that we are dealing with.

I use it anywhere there might be ambiguity (obviously). Not just compiler ambiguity (it would be required in that case), but also ambiguity for someone looking at the code.

Another somewhat rare use for the this keyword is when you need to invoke an explicit interface implementation from within the implementing class. Here's a contrived example:
class Example : ICloneable
{
private void CallClone()
{
object clone = ((ICloneable)this).Clone();
}
object ICloneable.Clone()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}

Here's when I use it:
Accessing Private Methods from within the class (to differentiate)
Passing the current object to another method (or as a sender object, in case of an event)
When creating extension methods :D
I don't use this for Private fields because I prefix private field variable names with an underscore (_).

[C++]
I agree with the "use it when you have to" brigade. Decorating code unnecessarily with this isn't a great idea because the compiler won't warn you when you forget to do it. This introduces potential confusion for people expecting this to always be there, i.e. they'll have to think about it.
So, when would you use it? I've just had a look around some random code and found these examples (I'm not passing judgement on whether these are good things to do or otherwise):
Passing "yourself" to a function.
Assigning "yourself" to a pointer or something like that.
Casting, i.e. up/down casting (safe or otherwise), casting away constness, etc.
Compiler enforced disambiguation.

You should always use it, I use it to diferantiate private fields and parameters (because our naming conventions state that we don't use prefixes for member and parameter names (and they are based on information found on the internet, so I consider that a best practice))

I use it when, in a function that accepts a reference to an object of the same type, I want to make it perfectly clear which object I'm referring to, where.
For example
class AABB
{
// ... members
bool intersects( AABB other )
{
return other.left() < this->right() &&
this->left() < other.right() &&
// +y increases going down
other.top() < this->bottom() &&
this->top() < other.bottom() ;
}
} ;
(vs)
class AABB
{
bool intersects( AABB other )
{
return other.left() < right() &&
left() < other.right() &&
// +y increases going down
other.top() < bottom() &&
top() < other.bottom() ;
}
} ;
At a glance which AABB does right() refer to? The this adds a bit of a clarifier.

In Jakub Šturc's answer his #5 about passing data between contructors probably could use a little explanation. This is in overloading constructors and is the one case where use of this is mandatory. In the following example we can call the parameterized constructor from the parameterless constructor with a default parameter.
class MyClass {
private int _x
public MyClass() : this(5) {}
public MyClass(int v) { _x = v;}
}
I've found this to be a particularly useful feature on occasion.

I got in the habit of using it liberally in Visual C++ since doing so would trigger IntelliSense ones I hit the '>' key, and I'm lazy. (and prone to typos)
But I've continued to use it, since I find it handy to see that I'm calling a member function rather than a global function.

I tend to underscore fields with _ so don't really ever need to use this. Also R# tends to refactor them away anyway...

I pretty much only use this when referencing a type property from inside the same type. As another user mentioned, I also underscore local fields so they are noticeable without needing this.

I use it only when required, except for symmetric operations which due to single argument polymorphism have to be put into methods of one side:
boolean sameValue (SomeNum other) {
return this.importantValue == other.importantValue;
}

[C++]
this is used in the assignment operator where most of the time you have to check and prevent strange (unintentional, dangerous, or just a waste of time for the program) things like:
A a;
a = a;
Your assignment operator will be written:
A& A::operator=(const A& a) {
if (this == &a) return *this;
// we know both sides of the = operator are different, do something...
return *this;
}

this on a C++ compiler
The C++ compiler will silently lookup for a symbol if it does not find it immediately. Sometimes, most of the time, it is good:
using the mother class' method if you did not overloaded it in the child class.
promoting a value of a type into another type
But sometimes, You just don't want the compiler to guess. You want the compiler to pick-up the right symbol and not another.
For me, those times are when, within a method, I want to access to a member method or member variable. I just don't want some random symbol picked up just because I wrote printf instead of print. this->printf would not have compiled.
The point is that, with C legacy libraries (§), legacy code written years ago (§§), or whatever could happen in a language where copy/pasting is an obsolete but still active feature, sometimes, telling the compiler to not play wits is a great idea.
These are the reasons I use this.
(§) it's still a kind of mystery to me, but I now wonder if the fact you include the <windows.h> header in your source, is the reason all the legacy C libraries symbols will pollute your global namespace
(§§) realizing that "you need to include a header, but that including this header will break your code because it uses some dumb macro with a generic name" is one of those russian roulette moments of a coder's life

'this.' helps find members on 'this' class with a lot of members (usually due to a deep inheritance chain).
Hitting CTRL+Space doesn't help with this, because it also includes types; where-as 'this.' includes members ONLY.
I usually delete it once I have what I was after: but this is just my style breaking through.
In terms of style, if you are a lone-ranger -- you decide; if you work for a company stick to the company policy (look at the stuff in source control and see what other people are doing). In terms of using it to qualify members, neither is right or wrong. The only wrong thing is inconsistency -- that is the golden rule of style. Leave the nit-picking others. Spend your time pondering real coding problems -- and obviously coding -- instead.

I use it every time I can. I believe it makes the code more readable, and more readable code equals less bugs and more maintainability.

When you are many developers working on the same code base, you need some code guidelines/rules. Where I work we've desided to use 'this' on fields, properties and events.
To me it makes good sense to do it like this, it makes the code easier to read when you differentiate between class-variables and method-variables.

It depends on the coding standard I'm working under. If we are using _ to denote an instance variable then "this" becomes redundant. If we are not using _ then I tend to use this to denote instance variable.

I use it to invoke Intellisense just like JohnMcG, but I'll go back and erase "this->" when I'm done. I follow the Microsoft convention of prefixing member variables with "m_", so leaving it as documentation would just be redundant.

1 - Common Java setter idiom:
public void setFoo(int foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
2 - When calling a function with this object as a parameter
notifier.addListener(this);

There is one use that has not already been mentioned in C++, and that is not to refer to the own object or disambiguate a member from a received variable.
You can use this to convert a non-dependent name into an argument dependent name inside template classes that inherit from other templates.
template <typename T>
struct base {
void f() {}
};
template <typename T>
struct derived : public base<T>
{
void test() {
//f(); // [1] error
base<T>::f(); // quite verbose if there is more than one argument, but valid
this->f(); // f is now an argument dependent symbol
}
}
Templates are compiled with a two pass mechanism. During the first pass, only non-argument dependent names are resolved and checked, while dependent names are checked only for coherence, without actually substituting the template arguments.
At that step, without actually substituting the type, the compiler has almost no information of what base<T> could be (note that specialization of the base template can turn it into completely different types, even undefined types), so it just assumes that it is a type. At this stage the non-dependent call f that seems just natural to the programmer is a symbol that the compiler must find as a member of derived or in enclosing namespaces --which does not happen in the example-- and it will complain.
The solution is turning the non-dependent name f into a dependent name. This can be done in a couple of ways, by explicitly stating the type where it is implemented (base<T>::f --adding the base<T> makes the symbol dependent on T and the compiler will just assume that it will exist and postpones the actual check for the second pass, after argument substitution.
The second way, much sorter if you inherit from templates that have more than one argument, or long names, is just adding a this-> before the symbol. As the template class you are implementing does depend on an argument (it inherits from base<T>) this-> is argument dependent, and we get the same result: this->f is checked in the second round, after template parameter substitution.

You should not use "this" unless you absolutely must.
There IS a penalty associated with unnecessary verbosity. You should strive for code that is exactly as long as it needs to be, and no longer.

more advantages or disadvantages to delegate members over classic functions?

class my_class
{
public int add_1(int a, int b) {return a + b;}
public func<int, int, int> add_2 = (a, b) => {return a + b;}
}
add_1 is a function whereas add_2 is a delegate. However in this context delegates can forfill a similar role.
Due to precedent and the design of the language the default choice for C# methods should be functions.
However both approaches have pros and cons so I've produced a list. Are there any more advanteges or disadvantages to either approach?
Advantages to conventional methods.
more conventional
outside users of the function see named parameters - for the add_2 syntax arg_n and a type is generally not enough information.
works better with intellisense - ty Minitech
works with reflection - ty Minitech
works with inheritance - ty Eric Lippert
has a "this" - ty CodeInChaos
lower overheads, speed and memory - ty Minitech and CodeInChaos
don't need to think about public\private in respect to both changing and using the function. - ty CodeInChaos
less dynamic, less is permitted that is not known at compile time - ty CodeInChaos
Advantages to "field of delegate type" methods.
more consistant, not member functions and data members, it's just all just data members.
can outwardly look and behave like a variable.
storing it in a container works well.
multiple classes could use the same function as if it were each ones member function, this would be very generic, concise and have good code reuse.
straightforward to use anywhere, for example as a local function.
presumably works well when passed around with garbage collection.
more dynamic, less must be known at compile time, for example there could be functions that configure the behaviour of objects at run time.
as if encapsulating it's code, can be combined and reworked, msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173175%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
outside users of the function see unnamed parameters - sometimes this is helpfull although it would be nice to be able to name them.
can be more compact, in this simple example for example the return could be removed, if there were one parameter the brackets could also be removed.
roll you'r own behaviours like inheritance - ty Eric Lippert
other considerations such as functional, modular, distributed, (code writing, testing or reasoning about code) etc...
Please don't vote to close, thats happened already and it got reopened. It's a valid question even if either you don't think the delegates approach has much practical use given how it conflicts with established coding style or you don't like the advanteges of delegates.

First off, the "high order bit" for me with regards to this design decision would be that I would never do this sort of thing with a public field/method. At the very least I would use a property, and probably not even that.
For private fields, I use this pattern fairly frequently, usually like this:
class C
{
private Func<int, int> ActualFunction = (int y)=>{ ... };
private Func<int, int> Function = ActualFunction.Memoize();
and now I can very easily test the performance characteristics of different memoization strategies without having to change the text of ActualFunction at all.
Another advantage of the "methods are fields of delegate type" strategy is that you can implement code sharing techniques that are different than the ones we've "baked in" to the language. A protected field of delegate type is essentially a virtual method, but more flexible. Derived classes can replace it with whatever they want, and you have emulated a regular virtual method. But you could build custom inheritence mechanisms; if you really like prototype inheritance, for example, you could have a convention that if the field is null, then a method on some prototypical instance is called instead, and so on.
A major disadvantage of the methods-are-fields-of-delegate-type approach is that of course, overloading no longer works. Fields must be unique in name; methods merely must be unique in signature. Also, you don't get generic fields the way that we get generic methods, so method type inference stops working.

The second one, in my opinion, offers absolutely no advantage over the first one. It's much less readable, is probably less efficient (given that Invoke has to be implied) and isn't more concise at all. What's more, if you ever use reflection it won't show up as being a method so if you do that to replace your methods in every class, you might break something that seems like it should work. In Visual Studio, the IntelliSense won't include a description of the method since you can't put XML comments on delegates (at least, not in the same way you would put them on normal methods) and you don't know what they point to anyway, unless it's readonly (but what if the constructor changed it?) and it will show up as a field, not a method, which is confusing.
The only time you should really use lambdas is in methods where closures are required, or when it's offers a significant convenience advantage. Otherwise, you're just decreasing readability (basically the readability of my first paragraph versus the current one) and breaking compatibility with previous versions of C#.

Why you should avoid delegates as methods by default, and what are alternatives:
Learning curve
Using delegates this way will surprise a lot of people. Not everyone can wrap their head around delegates, or why you'd want to swap out functions. There seems to be a learning curve. Once you get past it, delegates seem simple.
Perf and reliability
There's a performance loss to invoking delegates in this manner. This is another reason I would default to traditional method declaration unless it enabled something special in my pattern.
There's also an execution safety issue. Public fields are nullable. If you're passed an instance of a class with a public field you'll have to check that it isn't null before using it. This hurts perf and is kind of lame.
You can work around this by changing all public fields to properties (which is a rule in all .Net coding standards anyhow). Then in the setter throw an ArgumentNullException if someone tries to assign null.
Program design
Even if you can deal with all of this, allowing methods to be mutable at all goes against a lot of the design for static OO and functional programming languages.
In static OO types are always static, and dynamic behavior is enabled through polymorphism. You can know the exact behavior of a type based on its run time type. This is very helpful in debugging an existing program. Allowing your types to be modified at run time harms this.
In both static OO and function programming paradigms, limiting and isolating side-effects is quite helpful, and using fully immutable structures is one of the primary ways to do this. The only point of exposing methods as delegates is to create mutable structures, which has the exact opposite effect.
Alternatives
If you really wanted to go so far as to always use delegates to replace methods, you should be using a language like IronPython or something else built on top of the DLR. Those languages will be tooled and tuned for the paradigm you're trying to implement. Users and maintainers of your code won't be surprised.
That being said, there are uses that justify using delegates as a substitute for methods. You shouldn't consider this option unless you have a compelling reason to do so that overrides these performance, confusion, reliability, and design issues. You should only do so if you're getting something in return.
Uses
For private members, Eric Lippert's answer describes a good use: (Memoization).
You can use it to implement a Strategy Pattern in a function-based manner rather than requiring a class hierarchy. Again, I'd use private members for this...
...Example code:
public class Context
{
private Func<int, int, int> executeStrategy;
public Context(Func<int, int, int> executeStrategy) {
this.executeStrategy = executeStrategy;
}
public int ExecuteStrategy(int a, int b) {
return executeStrategy(a, b);
}
}
I have found a particular case where I think public delegate properties are warrented: To implement a Template Method Pattern with instances instead of derived classes...
...This is particularly useful in automated integration tests where you have a lot of setup/tear down. In such cases it often makes sense to keep state in a class designed to encapsulate the pattern rather than rely on the unit test fixture. This way you can easily support sharing the skeleton of the test suite between fixtures, without relying on (sometimes shoddy) test fixture inheritance. It also might be more amenable to parallelization, depending on the implementation of your tests.
var test = new MyFancyUITest
{
// I usually name these things in a more test specific manner...
Setup = () => { /* ... */ },
TearDown = () => { /* ... */ },
};
test.Execute();
Intellisense Support
outside users of the function see unnamed parameters - sometimes this is helpfull although it would be nice to be able to name them.
Use a named delegate - I believe this will get you at least some Intellisense for the parameters (probably just the names, less likely XML docs - please correct me if I'm wrong):
public class MyClass
{
public delegate int DoSomethingImpl(int foo, int bizBar);
public DoSomethingImpl DoSomething = (x, y) => { return x + y; }
}

I'd avoid delegate properties/fields as method replacements for public methods. For private methods it's a tool, but not one I use very often.
instance delegate fields have a per instance memory cost. Probably a premature optimization for most classes, but still something to keep in mind.
Your code uses a public mutable field, which can be changed at any time. That hurts encapsulation.
If you use the field initializer syntax, you can't access this. So field initializer syntax is mainly useful for static methods.
Makes static analysis much harder, since the implementation of that method isn't known at compile-time.
There are some cases where delegate properties/fields might be useful:
Handlers of some sort. Especially if multi-casting (and thus the event subscription pattern) doesn't make much sense
Assigning something that can't be easily described by a simple method body. Such as a memoized function.
The delegate is runtime generated or at least its value is only decided at runtime

Using a closure over local variables is an alternative to using a method and private fields. I strongly dislike classes with lots of fields, especially if some of these fields are only used by two methods or less. In these situations, using a delegate in a field can be preferable to conventional methods
class MyClassConventional {
int? someValue; // When Mark() is called, remember the value so that we can do something with it in Process(). Not used in any other method.
int X;
void Mark() {
someValue = X;
}
void Process() {
// Do something with someValue.Value
}
}
class MyClassClosure {
int X;
Action Process = null;
void Mark() {
int someValue = X;
Process = () => { // Do something with someValue };
}
}

This question presents a false dichotomy - between functions, and a delegate with an equivalent signature. The main difference is that one of the two you should only use if there are no other choices. Use this in your day to day work, and it will be thrown out of any code review.
The benefits that have been mentioned are far outweighed by the fact that there is almost never a reason to write code that is so obscure; especially when this code makes it look like you don't know how to program C#.
I urge anyone reading this to ignore any of the benefits which have been stated, since they are all overwhelmed by the fact that this is the kind of code that demonstrates that you do not know how to program in C#.
The only exception to that rule is if you have a need for one of the benefits, and that need can't be satisfied in any other way. In that case, you'll need to write more comment than code to explain why you have a good reason to do it. Be prepared to answer as clearly as Eric Lippert did. You'd better be able to explain as well as Eric does that you can't accomplish your requirements and write understandable code at the same time.

'Delegate 'System.Action' does not take 0 arguments.' Is this a C# compiler bug (lambdas + two projects)?

Consider the code below. Looks like perfectly valid C# code right?
//Project B
using System;
public delegate void ActionSurrogate(Action addEvent);
//public delegate void ActionSurrogate2();
// Using ActionSurrogate2 instead of System.Action results in the same error
// Using a dummy parameter (Action<double, int>) results in the same error
// Project A
public static class Class1 {
public static void ThisWontCompile() {
ActionSurrogate b = (a) =>
{
a(); // Error given here
};
}
}
I get a compiler error 'Delegate 'Action' does not take 0 arguments.' at the indicated position using the (Microsoft) C# 4.0 compiler. Note that you have to declare ActionSurrogate in a different project for this error to manifest.
It gets more interesting:
// Project A, File 1
public static class Class1 {
public static void ThisWontCompile() {
ActionSurrogate b = (a) => { a(); /* Error given here */ };
ActionSurrogate c = (a) => { a(); /* Error given here too */ };
Action d = () => { };
ActionSurrogate c = (a) => { a(); /* No error is given here */ };
}
}
Did I stumble upon a C# compiler bug here?
Note that this is a pretty annoying bug for someone who likes using lambdas a lot and is trying to create a data structures library for future use... (me)
EDIT: removed erronous case.
I copied and stripped my original project down to the minimum to make this happen. This is literally all the code in my new project.

FINAL UPDATE:
The bug has been fixed in C# 5. Apologies again for the inconvenience, and thanks for the report.
Original analysis:
I can reproduce the problem with the command-line compiler. It certainly looks like a bug. It's probably my fault; sorry about that. (I wrote all of the lambda-to-delegate conversion checking code.)
I'm in a coffee shop right now and I don't have access to the compiler sources from here. I'll try to find some time to reproduce this in the debug build tomorrow and see if I can work out what's going on. If I don't find the time, I'll be out of the office until after Christmas.
Your observation that introducing a variable of type Action causes the problem to disappear is extremely interesting. The compiler maintains many caches for both performance reasons and for analysis required by the language specification. Lambdas and local variables in particular have lots of complex caching logic. I'd be willing to bet as much as a dollar that some cache is being initialized or filled in wrong here, and that the use of the local variable fills in the right value in the cache.
Thanks for the report!
UPDATE: I am now on the bus and it just came to me; I think I know exactly what is wrong. The compiler is lazy, particularly when dealing with types that came from metadata. The reason is that there could be hundreds of thousands of types in the referenced assemblies and there is no need to load information about all of them. You're going to use far less than 1% of them probably, so let's not waste a lot of time and memory loading stuff you're never going to use. In fact the laziness goes deeper than that; a type passes through several "stages" before it can be used. First its name is known, then its base type, then whether its base type hierarchy is well-founded (acyclic, etc), then its type parameter constraints, then its members, then whether the members are well-founded (that overrides override something of the same signature, and so on.) I'll bet that the conversion logic is failing to call the method that says "make sure the types of all the delegate parameters have their members known", before it checks the signature of the delegate invoke for compatibility. But the code that makes a local variable probably does do that. I think that during the conversion checking, the Action type might not even have an invoke method as far as the compiler is concerned.
We'll find out shortly.
UPDATE: My psychic powers are strong this morning. When overload resolution attempts to determine if there is an "Invoke" method of the delegate type that takes zero arguments, it finds zero Invoke methods to choose from. We should be ensuring that the delegate type metadata is fully loaded before we do overload resolution. How strange that this has gone unnoticed this long; it repros in C# 3.0. Of course it does not repro in C# 2.0 simply because there were no lambdas; anonymous methods in C# 2.0 require you to state the type explicitly, which creates a local, which we know loads the metadata. But I would imagine that the root cause of the bug - that overload resolution does not force loading metadata for the invoke - goes back to C# 1.0.
Anyway, fascinating bug, thanks for the report. Obviously you've got a workaround. I'll have QA track it from here and we'll try to get it fixed for C# 5. (We have missed the window for Service Pack 1, which is already in beta.)

This probably is a problem with type inference, apperently the compiler infers a as an Action<T> instead of Action (it might think a is ActionSurrogate, which would fit the Action<Action>> signature). Try specifying the type of a explicitly:
ActionSurrogate b = (Action a) =>
{
a();
};
If this is not the case - might check around your project for any self defined Action delegates taking one parameter.

public static void ThisWontCompile()
{
ActionSurrogate b = (Action a) =>
{
a();
};
}
This will compile. Some glitch with the compiler its unable to find the Action delegate without parameters. That's why you are getting the error.
public delegate void Action();
public delegate void Action<T>();
public delegate void Action<T1,T2>();
public delegate void Action<T1,T2,T3>();
public delegate void Action<T1,T2,T3,T4>();

Stylecop tells me to add this keyword, but it's redundant - any performance implications?

I use Stylecop for Resharper and whenever I call something in my class, Stylecop tells me to use the this keyword. But the IDE says this is redundant code (which it sure is), so why should I use the this keyword?
Does redundant code mean its not needed (obviously) and the compiler won't even do anything with the this keyword? So I assume the this keyword is just for clarity.
Also, with the CLR, do things like this fall consistently across languages? So if the answer is that the compiler doesn't even touch the this keyword and it is just for presentation and clarity, then the same is true for VB.NET? I assume it is all for clarity as stylecop keeps an eye on this and Fxcop (which I will use later on) keeps an eye on my code's quality from a technical point of view.
Thanks

It's for clarity and to prevent any ambiguity between a class member and a local variable or parameter with the same name.
The IL it compiles to will not be any different.

Most of the time is just for clarity but some times it is required.
using System;
class Foo
{
String bar;
public Foo(String bar)
{
this.bar = bar;
}
}
Here you will need this as it serves to disambiguate between the field bar and the constructor parameter bar. Obviously changing the name of the parameter or field could accomplish the same thing.

In all cases, there is no performance difference with/without the this - the compiler still does it implicitly, injecting a ldarg.0 into the IL.
Just for completeness, there is one other mandatory use of this (excluding disambiguation, ctor-chaining, and passing this to other methods): extension methods. To call an extension method on the current instance, you must qualify with this (even though for a regular method it would be implicit).
Of course, in most cases, you would simply add a regular instance method to the class or a base-class...
class Foo {
void Test() {
this.Bar(); // fine
Bar(); // compiler error
}
}
static class FooExt {
public static void Bar(this Foo foo) { }
}

In C# this is a reference to the current instance of the class (it's me in VB.NET). It's used generally to fully qualify a class member. For example, consider this C# class:
public class MyClass
{
int rate;
private void testMethod()
{
int x;
x = this.rate;
}
}
this isn't required in the code above, but adds instant clarity when reading the code that rate belongs to the class rather than the method (search SO, you'll find lots of opinions about the use of this). It's semantic behavior is the same in VB--and its use doesn't impose a performance penalty.

Apart from the clarity examples provided the only other valid usage of the "this" keyword is to pass the current instance of an object as a paremeter.

It is just for clarity, and one can argue about what is better. Python doesn't support omitting the "self" identifier at all.
Also, with the CLR, do things like this fall consistently across languages? So if the answer is that the compiler doesn't even touch the this keyword and it is just for presentation and clarity, then the same is true for VB.NET?
In JVM for sure (and also for CLR, I'm almost sure) the code for the "this" keyword is always generated, even if that is omitted from the source - so it's like if the this keyword is always added. So, I don't think that any .NET compiler could generate different output, so there can't be a performance penalty.
Then, it depends on the language. For instance JScript (and even JScript.NET) does not allow to omit "this", like Python, because there are functions (so "this.a()" is a method invocation, "a()" is a function invocation), and because the compiler does not know the members of any types - they're only known at runtime (well, this is not an impossible problem to solve indeed, the other issue is more relevant).

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.