Develop Reference

Enforcing method don't return null

As question asked Here 8 years ago but I think there should be a way(New Patterns , New Designs , New Architectures or anything else.) to enforce method don't return null.
As you know there are some implications with returning null in a method one important for me is:
Handling null in Consuming-Side and understandable semantics like:
Method:
public ClassName Do()
{
...
return null;
}
And calling Do() like (Attention Comments also):
var objVal = Do();
//Accessing property of ClassName raised exception
var pnVal = objVal.PropName;//Exception id objVal is null
//But I should handle if it is not null then do anything I want
if(objVal!= null)
{
//Do something
}
after many problem on product by above way I came to this conclusion to generalize all method to follow a pattern to be readable,clean and preventing ambiguous semantic.
so a very basic Way is using Struct type because structure can't be null , if a return type of methods be structure then they can't return null and We know this in compile time not in runtime.
So I implement that above method like:
1- Make DTO out and in for method, in this case just out:
public struct Do_DTO_Out
{
public ClassName Prop1 { get; set; }
public bool IsEmpty
{
get
{
return Prop1 == null;
}
}
public static Do_DTO_Out Empty
{
get
{
return new Do_DTO_Out() { Prop1 = null };
}
}
}
2- And Do method should be:
public Do_DTO_Out Do()
{
try
{
return manipulatedObj;
}
catch (Exception exp)
{
}
return Do_DTO_Out.Empty;
}
3- In consuming side:
var objVal = Do();
if (!objVal.IsEmpty)
//Do something
Is struct is best way ? is it worth to change all method and create DTO in and out for each of them (I think so).
Is there better way to do that , any idea,help,answer would be truly appreciated.

Your 'reference type' to 'struct with property check' conversion seems useless to me. It also requires intimate knowledge of your intention, while the reference type null check is very obvious to anyone reading it later.
I think code contracts could work for you. It provides you with compile time static analysis and runtime checks. Just make sure you have the appropriate contract as post condition:
public ClassName Do()
{
...
object returnValue = null;
Contract.Ensures(returnValue != null);
return returnValue;
}

Assuming that value can never be null otherwise the if is unavoidable (but for a single method call you can now write Do()?.DoSomething()).
If you can introduce code contracts (see Patrick's answer) then I completely agree with Patrick and you should go with them. If it's not viable (because your codebase is already too big or you're targeting an environment where they aren't supported) then I'd first use assertions:
var obj = Do();
Debug.Assert(obj != null);
// Use obj...
We're however moving this responsibility to calling point and it may be tedious. If you want to make this interface explicit then you can use something a struct as you thought but throwing an exception at calling point (where the error is):
public NotNullable<SomeClass> Do() { }
Where NotNullable<T> is defined as:
public struct NotNullable<T> where T : class
{
public NotNullable(T value)
{
Value = value ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(value));
}
public T Value { get; }
}
However I do not like to explicitly access .Value at calling point then I'd make it transparent adding:
public static implicit operator T(NotNullable<T> rhs)
=> rhs.Value;
Now caller can be:
MyClass obj = Do();
obj.DoSomthing();
And the proper exception is thrown (at run-time, unfortunately) when object is created. Playing with [Conditional("DEBUG")] you may exclude that check for release builds having then a behavior similar to Debug.Assert() and a minimal (but still present) overhead.
Note that this makes sense only if you want to document interface method about this constraint directly in its signature. If you're not interested in this then keep it as simple as possible:
public SomeClass Do()
{
MyClass somevalue = ...
// ...
return NotNull(somevalue);
}
Where NotNull() is a static method define somewhere and imported with using static or even an extension method for object called as return somevalue.NotNull().
I don't especially like this approach because I think Debug.Assert() is enough in these cases but it's just my opinion. Of course maybe someday we will have Nullable Reference Types in C# then we'll get compile-time enforcement (as object? or the other way round object!).

Returning null is a bad practice - better to implement
NullObject Design Pattern

Resharper removes yield from foreach. Why?

I recently learned about yield and then created the following test console program:
public static string Customers = "Paul,Fred,Doug,Mark,Josh";
public static string Admins = "Paul,Doug,Mark";
public static void Main()
{
var test = CreateEfficientObject();
Console.WriteLine(test.Admins.FirstOrDefault());
//Note that 'GetAllCustomers' never runs.
}
public static IEnumerable<string> GetAllCustomers()
{
var databaseFetch = Customers.Split(',');
foreach (var s in databaseFetch)
{
yield return s;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<string> GetAllAdmins()
{
var databaseFetch = Admins.Split(',');
foreach (var s in databaseFetch)
{
yield return s;
}
}
static LoginEntitys CreateEfficientObject()
{
var returnObject = new LoginEntitys {};
returnObject.Admins = GetAllAdmins();
returnObject.Customers = GetAllCustomers();
return returnObject;
}
}
public class LoginEntitys
{
public IEnumerable<String> Admins { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<String> Customers { get; set; }
}
Yet I noticed Resharper wants to convert my foreach loops to :
public static IEnumerable<string> GetAllCustomers()
{
var databaseFetch = Customers.Split(',');
return databaseFetch;
}
Why does Resharper want to remove yield from this case? It changes the functionality completely as it will no longer lazy load without yield. I can only guess that either
A) I am using yield incorrectly/in bad pratice
B) It's a Resharper bug/suggestion that can just be ignored.
Any insight would be great.

You are correct that this proposed transformation changes the functionality of the code in subtle ways, preventing it from deferring the evaluation of the properties and performing the Split from being evaluated as early.
Perhaps those that implemented it were well aware that it was a change in functionality and felt that it was still a useful suggestion, one that could be ignored if the existing semantics were important, or if they actually failed to realize that the semantics were being altered. There's no good way for us to know, we can only guess. If those semantics are important for your program, then you are correct to not make the suggested transformation.

I think Resharper is being a bit dumb here, in the sense that its applying a standard "convert foreach to LINQ" transform without being aware of the context.
It doesn't suggest the same edits for a while loop:
public static IEnumerable<string> ReadLineFromFile(TextReader fileReader)
{
using (fileReader)
{
string currentLine;
while ((currentLine = fileReader.ReadLine()) != null)
{
yield return currentLine;
}
}
}
I guess the next iteration of Resharper which uses Roslyn will be much more context aware.
Thanks #servy for an engaging and refreshing discussion!

The code in your example is not calling the iterator on the IEnumerable you are returning. If you were using the result of GetAllAdmins() in a LINQ query for example the yield would be useful because execution of the expression could resume on each iteration.
I would imagine Resharper is just suggesting you remove unused code.

C# Extension Method that reads an object as a specified type

I find the following scenario quite often:
You have a string that you want to convert to an integer.
But first you must check:
string sId = null;
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(sId))
{
return int.Parse(sId);
}
else
{
return -1;
}
But what i want is to be able to do this:
sId.As<int>(-1)
So what i can do is write an exension method as follows:
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static T As<T>(this object instance, T defaultValue)
{
try
{
if (instance != null)
{
return (T)Convert.ChangeType(instance, typeof(T));
}
}
catch
{
}
return defaultValue;
}
}
My question is does anyone have a suggestion that this is a good approach?
Is there anything built into .NET 3.5 or up that is built in that can do this?

Instead of catching the thrown exception, I would check if the type can be changed. In this question a CanChangeType method is described.

Couldn't you just use Int.TryParse instead?
string str = null;
int i;
bool result = Int32.TryParse(str, out i);

I think it's OK if your program needs it but I'd like to make a few style suggestions:
call it Convert<T> rather than As<T>
let the defaultValue take a default
Consider not making it be an extension method. I know extension methods are great and all but I think there's something overly promiscuous about extension methods whose first argument is System.Object. The problem is you hit the autocomplete key in your IDE and you start finding a bunch of weird extension methods on every single object you use in your program. Converting isn't that common an operation, so I think I'd prefer MyUtil.Convert
So I'd slightly change your signature at least to:
public static class MyUtil {
public static T Convert<T>(object instance, T defaultValue=default(T))
* EDIT *
I might also propose the alternative syntax
public static bool TryConvert<T>(object instance, out T result) {
* EDIT 2 *
And I might propose taking IConvertible rather than object, just to narrow the interface a little bit:
public static T Convert<T>(IConvertible instance, T defaultValue=default(T)) {
...
}
public static bool TryConvert<T,U>(T instance, out U result) where T : IConvertible {
...
}

using extension methods on int

I'm reading about extension methods, and monkeying around with them
to see how they work, and I tried this:
namespace clunk {
public static class oog {
public static int doubleMe(this int x) {
return 2 * x;
}
}
class Program {
static void Main() {
Console.WriteLine(5.doubleMe());
}
}
}
and it worked as expected, successfully extending int with the doubleMe method, printing 10.
Next, being an old C guy, I wondered if I could do this:
namespace clunk {
public static class BoolLikeC {
public static bool operator true(this int i) { return i != 0; }
public static bool operator false(this int i) { return i == 0; }
}
class Program {
static void Main() {
if ( 7 ) {
Console.WriteLine("7 is so true");
}
}
}
}
I would think if the former would work, then the latter ought to work to make it such that
an int used in a boolean context would call the extension method on int, check to see that
7 is not equal to 0, and return true. But instead, the compiler doesn't even like the
later code, and puts the red squiggly lines under the two this's and says "Type expected".
Why shouldn't this work?

Very clever! A nice attempt, but regrettably we did not implement "extension everything", just extension methods.
We considered implementing extension properties, extension operators, extension events, extension constructors, extension interfaces, you name it, but most of them were not compelling enough to make it into C# 4 or the upcoming version of C#. We got as far as designing a syntax for the sort of thing you mention. We got rather farther on extension properties; we almost got extension properties into C# 4 but it ended up not working out. The sad story is here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/10/05/why-no-extension-properties.aspx
So, long story short, no such feature, but we'll consider it for hypothetical future releases of the language.
You can of course make a "ToBool()" extension method on int if you really do like the retro C convention that non-zero-means-true.

Extension methods are exactly that—methods.
You cannot make extension operators or properties.
Had that been possible, it would result in very hard-to-read code.
If you aren't familiar with the code base, it's almost impossible to figure out what if (7) means.

As others have said, there's no such thing as extension operators in C#.
The closest you can get, running the risk of facilitating lots of nasty bugs down the line, would be with implicit conversion operators on a custom "bridge" type:
// this works
BoolLikeC evil = 7;
if (evil) Console.WriteLine("7 is so true");
// and this works too
if ((BoolLikeC)7) Console.WriteLine("7 is so true");
// but this still won't work, thankfully
if (7) Console.WriteLine("7 is so true");
// and neither will this
if ((bool)7) Console.WriteLine("7 is so true");
// ...
public struct BoolLikeC
{
private readonly int _value;
public int Value { get { return _value; } }
public BoolLikeC(int value)
{
_value = value;
}
public static implicit operator bool(BoolLikeC x)
{
return (x.Value != 0);
}
public static implicit operator BoolLikeC(int x)
{
return new BoolLikeC(x);
}
}

Unfortunately you cannot introduce new operators, or implement support for existing operators, on types, through extension methods.
Basically, what you want to do cannot be done.
The only way to introduce new operators is to put them in one of the involved types. For binary operators you can put them in your own type, provided your type is one of the two, for unary types you need to put the operator inside the type itself.
Since you can't extend an int in any way, you can't do it.

Console.WriteLine(5.doubleMe());
is equivalent to
Console.WriteLine(oog.doubleMe(5));
Given that, you can see why if ( 7 ) doesn't work.
Extension methods are nothing more than syntax.
As a side note since it is syntax you can call extension methods on null variables because it translates to a normal method call, and methods can take null parameters.

Unfortunately you cannot use extension methods to add operators, and implicit type conversion in C# is implemented as an operator.

In the first instance you are writing an extension method - e.g. extending the functionality of the int data type. In the second code set, you are trying to override the bool operators. These are two totally different things.

What's the strangest corner case you've seen in C# or .NET? [closed]

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 collect a few corner cases and brain teasers and would always like to hear more. The page only really covers C# language bits and bobs, but I also find core .NET things interesting too. For example, here's one which isn't on the page, but which I find incredible:
string x = new string(new char[0]);
string y = new string(new char[0]);
Console.WriteLine(object.ReferenceEquals(x, y));
I'd expect that to print False - after all, "new" (with a reference type) always creates a new object, doesn't it? The specs for both C# and the CLI indicate that it should. Well, not in this particular case. It prints True, and has done on every version of the framework I've tested it with. (I haven't tried it on Mono, admittedly...)
Just to be clear, this is only an example of the kind of thing I'm looking for - I wasn't particularly looking for discussion/explanation of this oddity. (It's not the same as normal string interning; in particular, string interning doesn't normally happen when a constructor is called.) I was really asking for similar odd behaviour.
Any other gems lurking out there?

I think I showed you this one before, but I like the fun here - this took some debugging to track down! (the original code was obviously more complex and subtle...)
static void Foo<T>() where T : new()
{
T t = new T();
Console.WriteLine(t.ToString()); // works fine
Console.WriteLine(t.GetHashCode()); // works fine
Console.WriteLine(t.Equals(t)); // works fine
// so it looks like an object and smells like an object...
// but this throws a NullReferenceException...
Console.WriteLine(t.GetType());
}
So what was T...
Answer: any Nullable<T> - such as int?. All the methods are overridden, except GetType() which can't be; so it is cast (boxed) to object (and hence to null) to call object.GetType()... which calls on null ;-p
Update: the plot thickens... Ayende Rahien threw down a similar challenge on his blog, but with a where T : class, new():
private static void Main() {
CanThisHappen<MyFunnyType>();
}
public static void CanThisHappen<T>() where T : class, new() {
var instance = new T(); // new() on a ref-type; should be non-null, then
Debug.Assert(instance != null, "How did we break the CLR?");
}
But it can be defeated! Using the same indirection used by things like remoting; warning - the following is pure evil:
class MyFunnyProxyAttribute : ProxyAttribute {
public override MarshalByRefObject CreateInstance(Type serverType) {
return null;
}
}
[MyFunnyProxy]
class MyFunnyType : ContextBoundObject { }
With this in place, the new() call is redirected to the proxy (MyFunnyProxyAttribute), which returns null. Now go and wash your eyes!

Bankers' Rounding.
This one is not so much a compiler bug or malfunction, but certainly a strange corner case...
The .Net Framework employs a scheme or rounding known as Banker's Rounding.
In Bankers' Rounding the 0.5 numbers are rounded to the nearest even number, so
Math.Round(-0.5) == 0
Math.Round(0.5) == 0
Math.Round(1.5) == 2
Math.Round(2.5) == 2
etc...
This can lead to some unexpected bugs in financial calculations based on the more well known Round-Half-Up rounding.
This is also true of Visual Basic.

What will this function do if called as Rec(0) (not under the debugger)?
static void Rec(int i)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
if (i < int.MaxValue)
{
Rec(i + 1);
}
}
Answer:
On 32-bit JIT it should result in a StackOverflowException
On 64-bit JIT it should print all the numbers to int.MaxValue
This is because the 64-bit JIT compiler applies tail call optimisation, whereas the 32-bit JIT does not.
Unfortunately I haven't got a 64-bit machine to hand to verify this, but the method does meet all the conditions for tail-call optimisation. If anybody does have one I'd be interested to see if it's true.

Assign This!
This is one that I like to ask at parties (which is probably why I don't get invited anymore):
Can you make the following piece of code compile?
public void Foo()
{
this = new Teaser();
}
An easy cheat could be:
string cheat = #"
public void Foo()
{
this = new Teaser();
}
";
But the real solution is this:
public struct Teaser
{
public void Foo()
{
this = new Teaser();
}
}
So it's a little know fact that value types (structs) can reassign their this variable.

Few years ago, when working on loyality program, we had an issue with the amount of points given to customers. The issue was related to casting/converting double to int.
In code below:
double d = 13.6;
int i1 = Convert.ToInt32(d);
int i2 = (int)d;
does i1 == i2 ?
It turns out that i1 != i2.
Because of different rounding policies in Convert and cast operator the actual values are:
i1 == 14
i2 == 13
It's always better to call Math.Ceiling() or Math.Floor() (or Math.Round with MidpointRounding that meets our requirements)
int i1 = Convert.ToInt32( Math.Ceiling(d) );
int i2 = (int) Math.Ceiling(d);

They should have made 0 an integer even when there's an enum function overload.
I knew C# core team rationale for mapping 0 to enum, but still, it is not as orthogonal as it should be. Example from Npgsql.
Test example:
namespace Craft
{
enum Symbol { Alpha = 1, Beta = 2, Gamma = 3, Delta = 4 };
class Mate
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
JustTest(Symbol.Alpha); // enum
JustTest(0); // why enum
JustTest((int)0); // why still enum
int i = 0;
JustTest(Convert.ToInt32(0)); // have to use Convert.ToInt32 to convince the compiler to make the call site use the object version
JustTest(i); // it's ok from down here and below
JustTest(1);
JustTest("string");
JustTest(Guid.NewGuid());
JustTest(new DataTable());
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void JustTest(Symbol a)
{
Console.WriteLine("Enum");
}
static void JustTest(object o)
{
Console.WriteLine("Object");
}
}
}

This is one of the most unusual i've seen so far (aside from the ones here of course!):
public class Turtle<T> where T : Turtle<T>
{
}
It lets you declare it but has no real use, since it will always ask you to wrap whatever class you stuff in the center with another Turtle.
[joke] I guess it's turtles all the way down... [/joke]

Here's one I only found out about recently...
interface IFoo
{
string Message {get;}
}
...
IFoo obj = new IFoo("abc");
Console.WriteLine(obj.Message);
The above looks crazy at first glance, but is actually legal.No, really (although I've missed out a key part, but it isn't anything hacky like "add a class called IFoo" or "add a using alias to point IFoo at a class").
See if you can figure out why, then: Who says you can’t instantiate an interface?

When is a Boolean neither True nor False?
Bill discovered that you can hack a boolean so that if A is True and B is True, (A and B) is False.
Hacked Booleans

I'm arriving a bit late to the party, but I've got three four five:
If you poll InvokeRequired on a control that hasn't been loaded/shown, it will say false - and blow up in your face if you try to change it from another thread (the solution is to reference this.Handle in the creator of the control).
Another one which tripped me up is that given an assembly with:
enum MyEnum
{
Red,
Blue,
}
if you calculate MyEnum.Red.ToString() in another assembly, and in between times someone has recompiled your enum to:
enum MyEnum
{
Black,
Red,
Blue,
}
at runtime, you will get "Black".
I had a shared assembly with some handy constants in. My predecessor had left a load of ugly-looking get-only properties, I thought I'd get rid of the clutter and just use public const. I was more than a little surprised when VS compiled them to their values, and not references.
If you implement a new method of an interface from another assembly, but you rebuild referencing the old version of that assembly, you get a TypeLoadException (no implementation of 'NewMethod'), even though you have implemented it (see here).
Dictionary<,>: "The order in which the items are returned is undefined". This is horrible, because it can bite you sometimes, but work others, and if you've just blindly assumed that Dictionary is going to play nice ("why shouldn't it? I thought, List does"), you really have to have your nose in it before you finally start to question your assumption.

VB.NET, nullables and the ternary operator:
Dim i As Integer? = If(True, Nothing, 5)
This took me some time to debug, since I expected i to contain Nothing.
What does i really contain? 0.
This is surprising but actually "correct" behavior: Nothing in VB.NET is not exactly the same as null in CLR: Nothing can either mean null or default(T) for a value type T, depending on the context. In the above case, If infers Integer as the common type of Nothing and 5, so, in this case, Nothing means 0.

I found a second really strange corner case that beats my first one by a long shot.
String.Equals Method (String, String, StringComparison) is not actually side effect free.
I was working on a block of code that had this on a line by itself at the top of some function:
stringvariable1.Equals(stringvariable2, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
Removing that line lead to a stack overflow somewhere else in the program.
The code turned out to be installing a handler for what was in essence a BeforeAssemblyLoad event and trying to do
if (assemblyfilename.EndsWith("someparticular.dll", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
assemblyfilename = "someparticular_modified.dll";
}
By now I shouldn't have to tell you. Using a culture that hasn't been used before in a string comparison causes an assembly load. InvariantCulture is not an exception to this.

Here is an example of how you can create a struct that causes the error message "Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt".
The difference between success and failure is very subtle.
The following unit test demonstrates the problem.
See if you can work out what went wrong.
[Test]
public void Test()
{
var bar = new MyClass
{
Foo = 500
};
bar.Foo += 500;
Assert.That(bar.Foo.Value.Amount, Is.EqualTo(1000));
}
private class MyClass
{
public MyStruct? Foo { get; set; }
}
private struct MyStruct
{
public decimal Amount { get; private set; }
public MyStruct(decimal amount) : this()
{
Amount = amount;
}
public static MyStruct operator +(MyStruct x, MyStruct y)
{
return new MyStruct(x.Amount + y.Amount);
}
public static MyStruct operator +(MyStruct x, decimal y)
{
return new MyStruct(x.Amount + y);
}
public static implicit operator MyStruct(int value)
{
return new MyStruct(value);
}
public static implicit operator MyStruct(decimal value)
{
return new MyStruct(value);
}
}

C# supports conversions between arrays and lists as long as the arrays are not multidimensional and there is an inheritance relation between the types and the types are reference types
object[] oArray = new string[] { "one", "two", "three" };
string[] sArray = (string[])oArray;
// Also works for IList (and IEnumerable, ICollection)
IList<string> sList = (IList<string>)oArray;
IList<object> oList = new string[] { "one", "two", "three" };
Note that this does not work:
object[] oArray2 = new int[] { 1, 2, 3 }; // Error: Cannot implicitly convert type 'int[]' to 'object[]'
int[] iArray = (int[])oArray2; // Error: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'int[]'

This is the strangest I've encountered by accident:
public class DummyObject
{
public override string ToString()
{
return null;
}
}
Used as follows:
DummyObject obj = new DummyObject();
Console.WriteLine("The text: " + obj.GetType() + " is " + obj);
Will throw a NullReferenceException. Turns out the multiple additions are compiled by the C# compiler to a call to String.Concat(object[]). Prior to .NET 4, there is a bug in just that overload of Concat where the object is checked for null, but not the result of ToString():
object obj2 = args[i];
string text = (obj2 != null) ? obj2.ToString() : string.Empty;
// if obj2 is non-null, but obj2.ToString() returns null, then text==null
int length = text.Length;
This is a bug by ECMA-334 §14.7.4:
The binary + operator performs string concatenation when one or both operands are of type string. If an operand of string concatenation is null, an empty string is substituted. Otherwise, any non-string operand is converted to its string representation by invoking the virtual ToString method inherited from type object. If ToString returns null, an empty string is substituted.

Interesting - when I first looked at that I assumed it was something the C# compiler was checking for, but even if you emit the IL directly to remove any chance of interference it still happens, which means it really is the newobj op-code that's doing the checking.
var method = new DynamicMethod("Test", null, null);
var il = method.GetILGenerator();
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_0);
il.Emit(OpCodes.Newarr, typeof(char));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof(string).GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(char[]) }));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_0);
il.Emit(OpCodes.Newarr, typeof(char));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof(string).GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(char[]) }));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, typeof(object).GetMethod("ReferenceEquals"));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Box, typeof(bool));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, typeof(Console).GetMethod("WriteLine", new[] { typeof(object) }));
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);
method.Invoke(null, null);
It also equates to true if you check against string.Empty which means this op-code must have special behaviour to intern empty strings.

Public Class Item
Public ID As Guid
Public Text As String
Public Sub New(ByVal id As Guid, ByVal name As String)
Me.ID = id
Me.Text = name
End Sub
End Class
Public Sub Load(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Me.Load
Dim box As New ComboBox
Me.Controls.Add(box) 'Sorry I forgot this line the first time.'
Dim h As IntPtr = box.Handle 'Im not sure you need this but you might.'
Try
box.Items.Add(New Item(Guid.Empty, Nothing))
Catch ex As Exception
MsgBox(ex.ToString())
End Try
End Sub
The output is "Attempted to read protected memory. This is an indication that other memory is corrupt."

PropertyInfo.SetValue() can assign ints to enums, ints to nullable ints, enums to nullable enums, but not ints to nullable enums.
enumProperty.SetValue(obj, 1, null); //works
nullableIntProperty.SetValue(obj, 1, null); //works
nullableEnumProperty.SetValue(obj, MyEnum.Foo, null); //works
nullableEnumProperty.SetValue(obj, 1, null); // throws an exception !!!
Full description here

What if you have a generic class that has methods that could be made ambiguous depending on the type arguments? I ran into this situation recently writing a two-way dictionary. I wanted to write symmetric Get() methods that would return the opposite of whatever argument was passed. Something like this:
class TwoWayRelationship<T1, T2>
{
public T2 Get(T1 key) { /* ... */ }
public T1 Get(T2 key) { /* ... */ }
}
All is well good if you make an instance where T1 and T2 are different types:
var r1 = new TwoWayRelationship<int, string>();
r1.Get(1);
r1.Get("a");
But if T1 and T2 are the same (and probably if one was a subclass of another), it's a compiler error:
var r2 = new TwoWayRelationship<int, int>();
r2.Get(1); // "The call is ambiguous..."
Interestingly, all other methods in the second case are still usable; it's only calls to the now-ambiguous method that causes a compiler error. Interesting case, if a little unlikely and obscure.

C# Accessibility Puzzler
The following derived class is accessing a private field from its base class, and the compiler silently looks to the other side:
public class Derived : Base
{
public int BrokenAccess()
{
return base.m_basePrivateField;
}
}
The field is indeed private:
private int m_basePrivateField = 0;
Care to guess how we can make such code compile?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer
The trick is to declare Derived as an inner class of Base:
public class Base
{
private int m_basePrivateField = 0;
public class Derived : Base
{
public int BrokenAccess()
{
return base.m_basePrivateField;
}
}
}
Inner classes are given full access to the outer class members. In this case the inner class also happens to derive from the outer class. This allows us to "break" the encapsulation of private members.

Just found a nice little thing today:
public class Base
{
public virtual void Initialize(dynamic stuff) {
//...
}
}
public class Derived:Base
{
public override void Initialize(dynamic stuff) {
base.Initialize(stuff);
//...
}
}
This throws compile error.
The call to method 'Initialize' needs to be dynamically dispatched, but cannot be because it is part of a base access expression. Consider casting the dynamic arguments or eliminating the base access.
If I write base.Initialize(stuff as object); it works perfectly, however this seems to be a "magic word" here, since it does exactly the same, everything is still recieved as dynamic...

In an API we're using, methods that return a domain object might return a special "null object". In the implementation of this, the comparison operator and the Equals() method are overridden to return true if it is compared with null.
So a user of this API might have some code like this:
return test != null ? test : GetDefault();
or perhaps a bit more verbose, like this:
if (test == null)
return GetDefault();
return test;
where GetDefault() is a method returning some default value that we want to use instead of null. The surprise hit me when I was using ReSharper and following it's recommendation to rewrite either of this to the following:
return test ?? GetDefault();
If the test object is a null object returned from the API instead of a proper null, the behavior of the code has now changed, as the null coalescing operator actually checks for null, not running operator= or Equals().

Consider this weird case:
public interface MyInterface {
void Method();
}
public class Base {
public void Method() { }
}
public class Derived : Base, MyInterface { }
If Base and Derived are declared in the same assembly, the compiler will make Base::Method virtual and sealed (in the CIL), even though Base doesn't implement the interface.
If Base and Derived are in different assemblies, when compiling the Derived assembly, the compiler won't change the other assembly, so it will introduce a member in Derived that will be an explicit implementation for MyInterface::Method that will just delegate the call to Base::Method.
The compiler has to do this in order to support polymorphic dispatch with regards to the interface, i.e. it has to make that method virtual.

The following might be general knowledge I was just simply lacking, but eh. Some time ago, we had a bug case which included virtual properties. Abstracting the context a bit, consider the following code, and apply breakpoint to specified area :
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Derived d = new Derived();
d.Property = "AWESOME";
}
}
class Base
{
string _baseProp;
public virtual string Property
{
get
{
return "BASE_" + _baseProp;
}
set
{
_baseProp = value;
//do work with the base property which might
//not be exposed to derived types
//here
Console.Out.WriteLine("_baseProp is BASE_" + value.ToString());
}
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
string _prop;
public override string Property
{
get { return _prop; }
set
{
_prop = value;
base.Property = value;
} //<- put a breakpoint here then mouse over BaseProperty,
// and then mouse over the base.Property call inside it.
}
public string BaseProperty { get { return base.Property; } private set { } }
}
While in the Derived object context, you can get the same behavior when adding base.Property as a watch, or typing base.Property into the quickwatch.
Took me some time to realize what was going on. In the end I was enlightened by the Quickwatch. When going into the Quickwatch and exploring the Derived object d (or from the object's context, this) and selecting the field base, the edit field on top of the Quickwatch displays the following cast:
((TestProject1.Base)(d))
Which means that if base is replaced as such, the call would be
public string BaseProperty { get { return ((TestProject1.Base)(d)).Property; } private set { } }
for the Watches, Quickwatch and the debugging mouse-over tooltips, and it would then make sense for it to display "AWESOME" instead of "BASE_AWESOME" when considering polymorphism. I'm still unsure why it would transform it into a cast, one hypothesis is that call might not be available from those modules' context, and only callvirt.
Anyhow, that obviously doesn't alter anything in terms of functionality, Derived.BaseProperty will still really return "BASE_AWESOME", and thus this was not the root of our bug at work, simply a confusing component. I did however find it interesting how it could mislead developpers which would be unaware of that fact during their debug sessions, specially if Base is not exposed in your project but rather referenced as a 3rd party DLL, resulting in Devs just saying :
"Oi, wait..what ? omg that DLL is
like, ..doing something funny"

This one's pretty hard to top. I ran into it while I was trying to build a RealProxy implementation that truly supports Begin/EndInvoke (thanks MS for making this impossible to do without horrible hacks). This example is basically a bug in the CLR, the unmanaged code path for BeginInvoke doesn't validate that the return message from RealProxy.PrivateInvoke (and my Invoke override) is returning an instance of an IAsyncResult. Once it's returned, the CLR gets incredibly confused and loses any idea of whats going on, as demonstrated by the tests at the bottom.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging;
namespace BrokenProxy
{
class NotAnIAsyncResult
{
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
}
class BrokenProxy : RealProxy
{
private void HackFlags()
{
var flagsField = typeof(RealProxy).GetField("_flags", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
int val = (int)flagsField.GetValue(this);
val |= 1; // 1 = RemotingProxy, check out System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies.RealProxyFlags
flagsField.SetValue(this, val);
}
public BrokenProxy(Type t)
: base(t)
{
HackFlags();
}
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage msg)
{
var naiar = new NotAnIAsyncResult();
naiar.SomeProperty = "o noes";
return new ReturnMessage(naiar, null, 0, null, (IMethodCallMessage)msg);
}
}
interface IRandomInterface
{
int DoSomething();
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
BrokenProxy bp = new BrokenProxy(typeof(IRandomInterface));
var instance = (IRandomInterface)bp.GetTransparentProxy();
Func<int> doSomethingDelegate = instance.DoSomething;
IAsyncResult notAnIAsyncResult = doSomethingDelegate.BeginInvoke(null, null);
var interfaces = notAnIAsyncResult.GetType().GetInterfaces();
Console.WriteLine(!interfaces.Any() ? "No interfaces on notAnIAsyncResult" : "Interfaces");
Console.WriteLine(notAnIAsyncResult is IAsyncResult); // Should be false, is it?!
Console.WriteLine(((NotAnIAsyncResult)notAnIAsyncResult).SomeProperty);
Console.WriteLine(((IAsyncResult)notAnIAsyncResult).IsCompleted); // No way this works.
}
}
}
Output:
No interfaces on notAnIAsyncResult
True
o noes
Unhandled Exception: System.EntryPointNotFoundException: Entry point was not found.
at System.IAsyncResult.get_IsCompleted()
at BrokenProxy.Program.Main(String[] args)

I'm not sure if you'd say this is a Windows Vista/7 oddity or a .Net oddity but it had me scratching my head for a while.
string filename = #"c:\program files\my folder\test.txt";
System.IO.File.WriteAllText(filename, "Hello world.");
bool exists = System.IO.File.Exists(filename); // returns true;
string text = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(filename); // Returns "Hello world."
In Windows Vista/7 the file will actually be written to C:\Users\<username>\Virtual Store\Program Files\my folder\test.txt

Have you ever thought the C# compiler could generate invalid CIL? Run this and you'll get a TypeLoadException:
interface I<T> {
T M(T p);
}
abstract class A<T> : I<T> {
public abstract T M(T p);
}
abstract class B<T> : A<T>, I<int> {
public override T M(T p) { return p; }
public int M(int p) { return p * 2; }
}
class C : B<int> { }
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Console.WriteLine(new C().M(42));
}
}
I don't know how it fares in the C# 4.0 compiler though.
EDIT: this is the output from my system:
C:\Temp>type Program.cs
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication1 {
interface I<T> {
T M(T p);
}
abstract class A<T> : I<T> {
public abstract T M(T p);
}
abstract class B<T> : A<T>, I<int> {
public override T M(T p) { return p; }
public int M(int p) { return p * 2; }
}
class C : B<int> { }
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Console.WriteLine(new C().M(11));
}
}
}
C:\Temp>csc Program.cs
Microsoft (R) Visual C# 2008 Compiler version 3.5.30729.1
for Microsoft (R) .NET Framework version 3.5
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Temp>Program
Unhandled Exception: System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type 'ConsoleAppli
cation1.C' from assembly 'Program, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyTo
ken=null'.
at ConsoleApplication1.Program.Main(String[] args)
C:\Temp>peverify Program.exe
Microsoft (R) .NET Framework PE Verifier. Version 3.5.30729.1
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
[token 0x02000005] Type load failed.
[IL]: Error: [C:\Temp\Program.exe : ConsoleApplication1.Program::Main][offset 0x
00000001] Unable to resolve token.
2 Error(s) Verifying Program.exe
C:\Temp>ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

There is something really exciting about C#, the way it handles closures.
Instead of copying the stack variable values to the closure free variable, it does that preprocessor magic wrapping all occurences of the variable into an object and thus moves it out of stack - straight to the heap! :)
I guess, that makes C# even more functionally-complete (or lambda-complete huh)) language than ML itself (which uses stack value copying AFAIK). F# has that feature too, as C# does.
That does bring much delight to me, thank you MS guys!
It's not an oddity or corner case though... but something really unexpected from a stack-based VM language :)

From a question I asked not long ago:
Conditional operator cannot cast implicitly?
Given:
Bool aBoolValue;
Where aBoolValue is assigned either True or False;
The following will not compile:
Byte aByteValue = aBoolValue ? 1 : 0;
But this would:
Int anIntValue = aBoolValue ? 1 : 0;
The answer provided is pretty good too.

The scoping in c# is truly bizarre at times. Lets me give you one example:
if (true)
{
OleDbCommand command = SQLServer.CreateCommand();
}
OleDbCommand command = SQLServer.CreateCommand();
This fails to compile, because command is redeclared? There are some interested guesswork as to why it works that way in this thread on stackoverflow and in my blog.