I came across some code recently that replaces the use of switches by hard-coding a
Dictionary<string (or whatever we would've been switching on), Func<...>>
and where ever the switch would've been, it instead does dict["value"].Invoke(...).
The code feels wrong in some way, but at the same time, the methods do look a bit cleaner, especially when there's many possible cases. I can't give any rationale as to why this is good or bad design so I was hoping someone could give some reasons to support/condemn this kind of code. Is there a gain in performance? Loss of clarity?
Example:
public class A {
...
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
switch(arg) {
case "a": do stuff; break;
case "b": do other stuff; break;
etc.
}
...
}
...
}
becomes
public class A {
Dictionary<string, Func<int>> funcs = new Dictionary<string, Func<int>> {
{ "a", () => 0; },
{ "b", () => DoOtherStuff(); }
... etc.
};
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
funcs[arg].Invoke();
...
}
...
}
Advantages:
You can change the behaviour at runtime of the "switch" at runtime
it doesn't clutter the methods using it
you can have non-literal cases (ie. case a + b == 3) with much less hassle
Disadvantages:
All of your methods must have the same signature.
You have a change of scope, you can't use variables defined in the scope of the method unless you capture them in the lambda, you'll have to take care of redefining all lambdas should you add a variable at some point
you'll have to deal with non-existant indexes specifically (similar to default in a switch)
the stacktrace will be more complicated if an unhandled exception should bubble up, resulting in a harder to debug application
Should you use it? It really depends. You'll have to define the dictionary at some place, so the code will be cluttered by it somewhere. You'll have to decide for yourself. If you need to switch behaviour at runtime, the dictionary solution really sticks out, especially, if the methods you use don't have sideeffects (ie. don't need access to scoped variables).
For several reasons:
Because doing it this way allows you to select what each case branch will do at runtime. Otherwise, you have to compile it in.
What's more, you can also change the number of branches at runtime.
The code looks much cleaner especially with a large number of branches, as you mention.
Why does this solution feel wrong to you? If the dictionary is populated at compile time, then you certainly don't lose any safety (the delegates that go in certainly have to compile without error). You do lose a little performance, but:
In most cases the performance loss is a non-issue
The flexibility you gain is enormous
Jon has a couple good answers. Here are some more:
Whenever you need a new case in a switch, you have to code it in to that switch statement. That requires opening up that class (which previously worked just fine), adding the new code, and re-compiling and re-testing that class and any class that used it. This violates a SOLID development rule, the Open-Closed Principle (classes should be closed to modification, but open to extension). By contrast, a Dictionary of delegates allows delegates to be added, removed, and swapped out at will, without changing the code doing the selecting.
Using a Dictionary of delegates allows the code to be performed in a condition to be located anywhere, and thus given to the Dictionary from anywhere. Given this freedom, it's easy to turn the design into a Strategy pattern where each delegate is provided by a unique class that performs the logic for that case. This supports encapsulation of code and the Single Responsibility Principle (a class should do one thing, and should be the only class responsible for that thing).
If there are more number of possible cases then it is good idea to replace Switch Statement with the strategy pattern, See this.
Applying Strategy Pattern Instead of Using Switch Statements
No one has said anything yet about what I believe to be the single biggest drawback of this approach.
It's less maintainable.
I say this for two reasons.
It's syntactically more complex.
It requires more reasoning to understand.
Most programmers know how a switch statement works. Many programmers have never seen a Dictionary of functions.
While this might seem like an interesting and novel alternative to the switch statement and may very well be the only way to solve some problems, it is considerably more complex. If you don't need the added flexibility you shouldn't use it.
Convert your A class to a partial class, and create a second partial class in another file with just the delegate dictionary in it.
Now you can change the number of branches, and add logic to your switch statement without touching the source for the rest of your class.
(Regardless of language) Performance-wise, where such code exists in a critical section, you are almost certainly better off with a function look-up table.
The reason is that you eliminate multiple runtime conditionals (the longer your switch, the more comparisons there will be) in favour of simple array indexing and function call.
The only performance downside is you've introduced the cost of a function call. This will typically be preferable to said conditionals. Profile the difference; YMMV.
Related
I have a strange habit it seems... according to my co-worker at least. We've been working on a small project together. The way I wrote the classes is (simplified example):
[Serializable()]
public class Foo
{
public Foo()
{ }
private Bar _bar;
public Bar Bar
{
get
{
if (_bar == null)
_bar = new Bar();
return _bar;
}
set { _bar = value; }
}
}
So, basically, I only initialize any field when a getter is called and the field is still null. I figured this would reduce overload by not initializing any properties that aren't used anywhere.
ETA: The reason I did this is that my class has several properties that return an instance of another class, which in turn also have properties with yet more classes, and so on. Calling the constructor for the top class would subsequently call all constructors for all these classes, when they are not always all needed.
Are there any objections against this practice, other than personal preference?
UPDATE: I have considered the many differing opinions in regards to this question and I will stand by my accepted answer. However, I have now come to a much better understanding of the concept and I'm able to decide when to use it and when not.
Cons:
Thread safety issues
Not obeying a "setter" request when the value passed is null
Micro-optimizations
Exception handling should take place in a constructor
Need to check for null in class' code
Pros:
Micro-optimizations
Properties never return null
Delay or avoid loading "heavy" objects
Most of the cons are not applicable to my current library, however I would have to test to see if the "micro-optimizations" are actually optimizing anything at all.
LAST UPDATE:
Okay, I changed my answer. My original question was whether or not this is a good habit. And I'm now convinced that it's not. Maybe I will still use it in some parts of my current code, but not unconditionally and definitely not all the time. So I'm going to lose my habit and think about it before using it. Thanks everyone!
What you have here is a - naive - implementation of "lazy initialization".
Short answer:
Using lazy initialization unconditionally is not a good idea. It has its places but one has to take into consideration the impacts this solution has.
Background and explanation:
Concrete implementation:
Let's first look at your concrete sample and why I consider its implementation naive:
It violates the Principle of Least Surprise (POLS). When a value is assigned to a property, it is expected that this value is returned. In your implementation this is not the case for null:
foo.Bar = null;
Assert.Null(foo.Bar); // This will fail
It introduces quite some threading issues: Two callers of foo.Bar on different threads can potentially get two different instances of Bar and one of them will be without a connection to the Foo instance. Any changes made to that Bar instance are silently lost.
This is another case of a violation of POLS. When only the stored value of a property is accessed it is expected to be thread-safe. While you could argue that the class simply isn't thread-safe - including the getter of your property - you would have to document this properly as that's not the normal case. Furthermore the introduction of this issue is unnecessary as we will see shortly.
In general:
It's now time to look at lazy initialization in general:
Lazy initialization is usually used to delay the construction of objects that take a long time to be constructed or that take a lot of memory once fully constructed.
That is a very valid reason for using lazy initialization.
However, such properties normally don't have setters, which gets rid of the first issue pointed out above.
Furthermore, a thread-safe implementation would be used - like Lazy<T> - to avoid the second issue.
Even when considering these two points in the implementation of a lazy property, the following points are general problems of this pattern:
Construction of the object could be unsuccessful, resulting in an exception from a property getter. This is yet another violation of POLS and therefore should be avoided. Even the section on properties in the "Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries" explicitly states that property getters shouldn't throw exceptions:
Avoid throwing exceptions from property getters.
Property getters should be simple operations without any preconditions. If a getter might throw an exception, consider redesigning the property to be a method.
Automatic optimizations by the compiler are hurt, namely inlining and branch prediction. Please see Bill K's answer for a detailed explanation.
The conclusion of these points is the following:
For each single property that is implemented lazily, you should have considered these points.
That means, that it is a per-case decision and can't be taken as a general best practice.
This pattern has its place, but it is not a general best practice when implementing classes. It should not be used unconditionally, because of the reasons stated above.
In this section I want to discuss some of the points others have brought forward as arguments for using lazy initialization unconditionally:
Serialization:
EricJ states in one comment:
An object that may be serialized will not have it's contructor invoked when it is deserialized (depends on the serializer, but many common ones behave like this). Putting initialization code in the constructor means that you have to provide additional support for deserialization. This pattern avoids that special coding.
There are several problems with this argument:
Most objects never will be serialized. Adding some sort of support for it when it is not needed violates YAGNI.
When a class needs to support serialization there exist ways to enable it without a workaround that doesn't have anything to do with serialization at first glance.
Micro-optimization:
Your main argument is that you want to construct the objects only when someone actually accesses them. So you are actually talking about optimizing the memory usage.
I don't agree with this argument for the following reasons:
In most cases, a few more objects in memory have no impact whatsoever on anything. Modern computers have way enough memory. Without a case of actual problems confirmed by a profiler, this is pre-mature optimization and there are good reasons against it.
I acknowledge the fact that sometimes this kind of optimization is justified. But even in these cases lazy initialization doesn't seem to be the correct solution. There are two reasons speaking against it:
Lazy initialization potentially hurts performance. Maybe only marginally, but as Bill's answer showed, the impact is greater than one might think at first glance. So this approach basically trades performance versus memory.
If you have a design where it is a common use case to use only parts of the class, this hints at a problem with the design itself: The class in question most likely has more than one responsibility. The solution would be to split the class into several more focused classes.
It is a good design choice. Strongly recommended for library code or core classes.
It is called by some "lazy initialization" or "delayed initialization" and it is generally considered by all to be a good design choice.
First, if you initialize in the declaration of class level variables or constructor, then when your object is constructed, you have the overhead of creating a resource that may never be used.
Second, the resource only gets created if needed.
Third, you avoid garbage collecting an object that was not used.
Lastly, it is easier to handle initialization exceptions that may occur in the property then exceptions that occur during initialization of class level variables or the constructor.
There are exceptions to this rule.
Regarding the performance argument of the additional check for initialization in the "get" property, it is insignificant. Initializing and disposing an object is a more significant performance hit than a simple null pointer check with a jump.
Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/vstudio/ms229042.aspx
Regarding Lazy<T>
The generic Lazy<T> class was created exactly for what the poster wants, see Lazy Initialization at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997286(v=vs.100).aspx. If you have older versions of .NET, you have to use the code pattern illustrated in the question. This code pattern has become so common that Microsoft saw fit to include a class in the latest .NET libraries to make it easier to implement the pattern. In addition, if your implementation needs thread safety, then you have to add it.
Primitive Data Types and Simple Classes
Obvioulsy, you are not going to use lazy-initialization for primitive data type or simple class use like List<string>.
Before Commenting about Lazy
Lazy<T> was introduced in .NET 4.0, so please don't add yet another comment regarding this class.
Before Commenting about Micro-Optimizations
When you are building libraries, you must consider all optimizations. For instance, in the .NET classes you will see bit arrays used for Boolean class variables throughout the code to reduce memory consumption and memory fragmentation, just to name two "micro-optimizations".
Regarding User-Interfaces
You are not going to use lazy initialization for classes that are directly used by the user-interface. Last week I spent the better part of a day removing lazy loading of eight collections used in a view-model for combo-boxes. I have a LookupManager that handles lazy loading and caching of collections needed by any user-interface element.
"Setters"
I have never used a set-property ("setters") for any lazy loaded property. Therefore, you would never allow foo.Bar = null;. If you need to set Bar then I would create a method called SetBar(Bar value) and not use lazy-initialization
Collections
Class collection properties are always initialized when declared because they should never be null.
Complex Classes
Let me repeat this differently, you use lazy-initialization for complex classes. Which are usually, poorly designed classes.
Lastly
I never said to do this for all classes or in all cases. It is a bad habit.
Do you consider implementing such pattern using Lazy<T>?
In addition to easy creation of lazy-loaded objects, you get thread safety while the object is initialized:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd642331.aspx
As others said, you lazily-load objects if they're really resource-heavy or it takes some time to load them during object construction-time.
I think it depends on what you are initialising. I probably wouldn't do it for a list as the construction cost is quite small, so it can go in the constructor. But if it was a pre-populated list then I probably wouldn't until it was needed for the first time.
Basically, if the cost of construction outweighs the cost of doing an conditional check on each access then lazy create it. If not, do it in the constructor.
Lazy instantiation/initialization is a perfectly viable pattern. Keep in mind, though, that as a general rule consumers of your API do not expect getters and setters to take discernable time from the end user POV (or to fail).
The downside that I can see is that if you want to ask if Bars is null, it would never be, and you would be creating the list there.
I was just going to put a comment on Daniel's answer but I honestly don't think it goes far enough.
Although this is a very good pattern to use in certain situations (for instance, when the object is initialized from the database), it's a HORRIBLE habit to get into.
One of the best things about an object is that it offeres a secure, trusted environment. The very best case is if you make as many fields as possible "Final", filling them all in with the constructor. This makes your class quite bulletproof. Allowing fields to be changed through setters is a little less so, but not terrible. For instance:
class SafeClass
{
String name="";
Integer age=0;
public void setName(String newName)
{
assert(newName != null)
name=newName;
}// follow this pattern for age
...
public String toString() {
String s="Safe Class has name:"+name+" and age:"+age
}
}
With your pattern, the toString method would look like this:
if(name == null)
throw new IllegalStateException("SafeClass got into an illegal state! name is null")
if(age == null)
throw new IllegalStateException("SafeClass got into an illegal state! age is null")
public String toString() {
String s="Safe Class has name:"+name+" and age:"+age
}
Not only this, but you need null checks everywhere you might possibly use that object in your class (Outside your class is safe because of the null check in the getter, but you should be mostly using your classes members inside the class)
Also your class is perpetually in an uncertain state--for instance if you decided to make that class a hibernate class by adding a few annotations, how would you do it?
If you make any decision based on some micro-optomization without requirements and testing, it's almost certainly the wrong decision. In fact, there is a really really good chance that your pattern is actually slowing down the system even under the most ideal of circumstances because the if statement can cause a branch prediction failure on the CPU which will slow things down many many many more times than just assigning a value in the constructor unless the object you are creating is fairly complex or coming from a remote data source.
For an example of the brance prediction problem (which you are incurring repeatedly, nost just once), see the first answer to this awesome question: Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?
Let me just add one more point to many good points made by others...
The debugger will (by default) evaluate the properties when stepping through the code, which could potentially instantiate the Bar sooner than would normally happen by just executing the code. In other words, the mere act of debugging is changing the execution of the program.
This may or may not be a problem (depending on side-effects), but is something to be aware of.
Are you sure Foo should be instantiating anything at all?
To me it seems smelly (though not necessarily wrong) to let Foo instantiate anything at all. Unless it is Foo's express purpose to be a factory, it should not instantiate it's own collaborators, but instead get them injected in its constructor.
If however Foo's purpose of being is to create instances of type Bar, then I don't see anything wrong with doing it lazily.
Which is better in accessing a property value?
Accessing like this
propertyobjA.objB.Prop1
propertyobjA.objB.Prop2
or assign to var
var objB = propertyobjA.objB;
then call objB.Prop1 and objB.Prop1
Which one improves performance in c#?
To be perfectly the honest, the answer is likely that the second will be faster, but I can pretty much guarantee that it will not matter in the slightest. You should be careful of thinking too hard about optimisation too early. 99% of all performance issues are down to much larger issues such as hitting a database too frequently, etc., not trivial issues like this. Even if there was a tiny difference between the two cases, unless this is some of the most time-critical software on the planet, what matters is readability (not that either are hard to read in this case), not which is faster.
It depends on what objB is. If you are calculating something (which you shouldn't do but can do) then of course assigning it to a value will yield better performance.
Another note, you should avoid having dependencies on sub properties of a variable, since you are putting a higher coupling between the classes.
I think this won't make a big difference performancewise (second alternative might be a bit faster). But this is not the place where your performance problems (if any) come from.
UPDATE: Thinking about, the value of propertyobjA.objB could change between getting Prop1 and Prop2, so the two alternatives cannot be considered as being the same code.
The impact to performance largely depends on the implementation of the propertyObjA.objB property getter. For instance, if it is simply implemented as:
public Foo objB { get { return this._objB; } }
Then calling that twice will have a negligible impact on performance.
If, however, that same property did something computationally expensive, then your second suggestion would perform better.
That being said, the framework guidelines state that you should not use property getters to hide potentially computationally expensive operations, instead preferring a method call instead, e.g.:
public objB ComputeB ();
You really ought to not concern yourself with things like that when writing code in a higher level language such as c#.
Modern compilers of such languages as c# and java are extremely sofisticated and will perform all kinds optimizations on your code. The end result for you as developer is that you will never see a difference in performance when writing a particular trivial piece of code one way or the other. The compiler will pick the most optimal way.
Everything else is down to preference. If you like to chain several property accesses, that's fine. If you like to assign an intermediate result to a variable to improve readability of your code, that's fine too.
This pattern pops up a lot. It looks like a very verbose way to move what would otherwise be separate named methods into a single method and then distinguished by a parameter.
Is there any good reason to have this pattern over just having two methods Method1() and Method2() ? The real kicker is that this pattern tends to be invoked only with constants at runtime-- i.e. the arguments are all known before compiling is done.
public enum Commands
{
Method1,
Method2
}
public void ClientCode()
{
//Always invoked with constants! Never user input.
RunCommands(Commands.Method1);
RunCommands(Commands.Method2);
}
public void RunCommands(Commands currentCommand)
{
switch (currentCommand)
{
case Commands.Method1:
// Stuff happens
break;
case Commands.Method2:
// Other stuff happens
break;
default:
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("currentCommand");
}
}
To an OO programmer, this looks horrible.
The switch and enum would need synchronised maintenance and the default case seems like make-work.
The OO programmer would substitute an object with named methods: Then the names like method1 would only appear once in the library. Also all the default cases would be obviated.
Yes, your clients still need to be synchronised with the methods you supply - a static language always insists on method names being known at compile time.
You could argue that this pattern allows you to put shared logging (or other) code for method entry and exit in a single place. But I wouldn't. AOP is a better approach for this sort of thing.
That pattern could be valid if you needed the coupling to be very loose. For example you might have an interface
interface CommandProcessor{
void process(Command c);
}
If you have a method per command then each time you add a new command you would need to add a new method, if you have multiple implementations then you would need to add the method to each Processor. This could be resolved by having some base class, but if the needs diverge you could end up with a very deep class heirarchy as you add new abstraction layers (or you may already be extending another class in with the processor. If it is based on switch's over the constant you can have you default case that handles new cases appropriately by default (exceptions, whatever may be appropriate).
I have used a pattern similar to this in my code with the addition of a factory. The operations started as a small set, but I knew they would be increasing, so I had a mechanism to describe the command and then a factory that produced CommandProcessors. The factory would generate the appropriate processor and then the single method of that processor would accept the command and perform its processing.
That said if your list of command is fairly static and you don't need to worry about how tightly things are coupled then the one-method-per-command approach certainly lends itself to much more readable code.
I can't see any obvious advantages. Quite the opposite; by splitting the blocks into separate methods, each method will be smaller, easier to read and easier to test.
If needed, you could still have the same "entry point" method, where each case would just branch out and call another method. Whether that would be a good or bad idea is impossible to say without knowing more about specific cases. Either way, I would definitely avoid implementing the code for each case in the RunCommands method.
If RunCommands is only ever invoked with the names constants, then I don't see any advantage in this pattern at all.
The only advantage I see (and it could be a big one) would be that the decision between Method1 and Method2 and the code that actually executes the choice could be entirely unrelated. Of course that advantage is lost, when only constants are ever used to invoke RunCommand.
if the code being run inside each case block is completely separate, no value added. however, if there is any common code to be executed before or after the parameter-specific code, this allows it to not be repeated.
still not really the best pattern, though. each separate method could just have calls to helper methods to handle the common code. and if there needs to be another call, but this one doesn't need the common code in front or at the end, the whole model is broken (or you surround that code with and IF). at this point, all value is lost.
so, really, the answer is no.
For quick tasks where I only use an instantiated object once, I am aware that I can do the following:
int FooBarResult = (new Foo()).Bar();
I say this is perfectly acceptable with non-disposable objects and more readable than the alternative:
Foo MyOnceUsedFoo = new Foo();
int FooBarResult = MyOnceUsedFoo.Bar();
Which do you use, and why?
Would you ever use this type of anonymous instantiation in a production app?
Preference: with parenthesis "(new Foo()).Bar();" or without "new Foo().Bar();"?
(Edited to abstract question away from Random class)
Side note regarding random numbers: In fact, no, your specific example (new Random().Next(0,100)) is completely unacceptable. The generated random numbers will be far from uniform.
Other than that, in general, there is not much difference between the two. The compiler will most probably generate the exact same code in either case. You should go with the most readable case (long statements might harm readability; more code will do it too, so you have to make the trade-off in your specific case).
By the way, if you chose to go with the single line case, omit the unnecessary parens (new MyObject().Method() will do).
You might want to consider the implications of using the code in the debugger. The second case will allow you to inspect the object you've created, whereas the first won't. Granted you can always back out to the second case when you're attempting to debug the code.
I've done it both ways and don't really have a preference. I prefer whatever looks more readable, which is highly dependent on the complexity of the class and method being called.
BTW -- you might want to pick a different example. I fear that your point might get lost in discussions over the best way to generate random numbers.
If you are only using the object once, the first way is better all the time.
It is shorter and clearer, because it makes it explicit that you will not use the object later.
It will probably compile to the same CIL anyway, so there's no advantage to the second form.
First statement. It's more readable, has less code and doesn't leave temps around.
The second one is debugging friendly, while the first one isn't. The second wins only because of this.
In fact the first way, creating a temporary, is more readable for two reasons:
1) it's more concise
There's less code to read, there's no unnecessary local variable introduced, and no potential name clash with another local, or shadowing of any variable with the same name in an enclosing scope
2) it communicates something that the second form doesn't, that the object is being used temporarily.
Reading it, I know that that instance is never going to be used again, so in my "mental compiler" that I use to understand the code I'm reading, I don't have to keep a reference to it any more than the code keeps a reference to it.
As Mehrdad notes, though, doing it with a Random class isn't a good idea.
As he also notes, the redundant parentheses make it less concise; unless you're in a dusty corner of a language, assume that competent programmers know the language's operator precedence. In this case, even if I don't know the operator precedence, the alternative parse (calling new on a function's return) is nonsensical, so the "obvious" reading is the correct reading.
int RandomIndex = (new Random()).Next(0,100);
int RandomIndex = new Random().Next(0,100);
Some time ago I had to address a certain C# design problem when I was implementing a JavaScript code-generation framework. One of the solutions I came with was using the “using” keyword in a totally different (hackish, if you please) way. I used it as a syntax sugar (well, originally it is one anyway) for building hierarchical code structure. Something that looked like this:
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
using(cb.Function("foo"))
{
// Generate some function code
cb.Add(someStatement);
cb.Add(someOtherStatement);
using(cb.While(someCondition))
{
cb.Add(someLoopStatement);
// Generate some more code
}
}
It is working because the Function and the While methods return IDisposable object, that, upon dispose, tells the builder to close the current scope. Such thing can be helpful for any tree-like structure that need to be hard-codded.
Do you think such “hacks” are justified? Because you can say that in C++, for example, many of the features such as templates and operator overloading get over-abused and this behavior is encouraged by many (look at boost for example). On the other side, you can say that many modern languages discourage such abuse and give you specific, much more restricted features.
My example is, of course, somewhat esoteric, but real. So what do you think about the specific hack and of the whole issue? Have you encountered similar dilemmas? How much abuse can you tolerate?
I think this is something that has blown over from languages like Ruby that have much more extensive mechanisms to let you create languages within your language (google for "dsl" or "domain specific languages" if you want to know more). C# is less flexible in this respect.
I think creating DSL's in this way is a good thing. It makes for more readable code. Using blocks can be a useful part of a DSL in C#. In this case I think there are better alternatives. The use of using is this case strays a bit too far from its original purpose. This can confuse the reader. I like Anton Gogolev's solution better for example.
Offtopic, but just take a look at how pretty this becomes with lambdas:
var codeBuilder = new CodeBuilder();
codeBuilder.DefineFunction("Foo", x =>
{
codeBuilder.While(condition, y =>
{
}
}
It would be better if the disposable object returned from cb.Function(name) was the object on which the statements should be added. That internally this function builder passed through the calls to private/internal functions on the CodeBuilder is fine, just that to public consumers the sequence is clear.
So long as the Dispose implementation would make the following code cause a runtime error.
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
var f = cb.Function("foo")
using(function)
{
// Generate some function code
f.Add(someStatement);
}
function.Add(something); // this should throw
Then the behaviour is intuitive and relatively reasonable and correct usage (below) encourages and prevents this happening
CodeBuilder cb = new CodeBuilder();
using(var function = cb.Function("foo"))
{
// Generate some function code
function.Add(someStatement);
}
I have to ask why you are using your own classes rather than the provided CodeDomProvider implementations though. (There are good reasons for this, notably that the current implementation lacks many of the c# 3.0 features) but since you don't mention it yourself...
Edit: I would second Anoton's suggest to use lamdas. The readability is much improved (and you have the option of allowing Expression Trees
If you go by the strictest definitions of IDisposable then this is an abuse. It's meant to be used as a method for releasing native resources in a deterministic fashion by a managed object.
The use of IDisposable has evolved to essentially be used by "any object which should have a deterministic lifetime". I'm not saying this is write or wrong but that's how many API's and users are choosing to use IDisposable. Given that definition it's not an abuse.
I wouldn't consider it terribly bad abuse, but I also wouldn't consider it good form because of the cognitive wall you're building for your maintenance developers. The using statement implies a certain class of lifetime management. This is fine in its usual uses and in slightly customized ones (like #heeen's reference to an RAII analogue), but those situations still keep the spirit of the using statement intact.
In your particular case, I might argue that a more functional approach like #Anton Gogolev's would be more in the spirit of the language as well as maintainable.
As to your primary question, I think each such hack must ultimately stand on its own merits as the "best" solution for a particular language in a particular situation. The definition of best is subjective, of course, but there are definitely times (especially when the external constraints of budgets and schedules are thrown into the mix) where a slightly more hackish approach is the only reasonable answer.
I often "abuse" using blocks. I think they provide a great way of defining scope. I have a whole series of objects that I use for capture and restoring state (e.g. of Combo boxes or the mouse pointer) during operations that may change the state. I also use them for creating and dropping database connections.
E.g.:
using(_cursorStack.ChangeCursor(System.Windows.Forms.Cursors.WaitCursor))
{
...
}
I wouldn't call it abuse. Looks more like a fancied up RAII technique to me. People have been using these for things like monitors.