Develop Reference

Using methods from a type passed as a parameter in C#

I'm working in Q#, a quantum programming language based on C#. Quantum operations become C# classes, from which you can do things like
QuantumOperation.run(simulator, param1, param2);
which will use a quantum simulator simulator to run the operation QuantumOperation with the parameters param1 and param2.
I have many different operations which I want to run using different simulators and different parameters. What I would like to do is pass the quantum operation to another method, which will iterate through all the simulators and parameters. Then I can call this method with all the quantum operations I want.
The problem is that - as far as I can tell - a quantum operation is really a class and not an object. So, for example, if I write:
static void someMethod<Qop>(){...}
then I can call this with a quantum operation QuantumOperation as:
someMethod<QuantumOperation>()
and it compiles fine. However, if I try to do something like
static void someMethod<Qop>(Qop quantumOperation){ ...}
someMethod<QuantumOperation>(quantumOperation);
I get an error of "QuantumOperation is a type, which is not valid in the given context" for the second line.
If I try:
static void someMethod<Qop>(...){
...
Qop.Run(...);
...
}
it similarly says: "'Qop' is a type parameter, which is not valid in the given context".
What seems to be happening here is that I'm passing the class as a type. But then when I want to treat the type as a class, I can't. I looked for ways to pass a class as an argument, but I only see ways to do this that will create objects in that class. But I can't use an object, since "Run" is a static method.
(I could try passing an object and getting the class from that, but (a) I don't know if it's possible to create objects of quantum operation classes, and (b) I can only find public Type GetType, which returns a type and not a class, giving the same problem).
Is there any way to pass a class as an argument, then reference static methods of that class, without ever instantiating an object?
Now, maybe I'm asking too much, since, as far as C# is concerned, it's a coincidence that all these classes have a method called "Run". It maybe shouldn't be able to attempt to call methods with the same name from different classes.
Alternatively, I could construct a method for each quantum operation and then pass those methods. The method would look like:
static void QuantumOperationWrapper(QuantumSimulator simulator, Int int_parameter){
QuantumOperation.Run(simulator, in_parameter);
}
I would need to make a new method for each quantum operation, but that's not that bad. Then I can pass this as a delegate or Func to the methods I want. The problem is that the results I want are contained in the QuantumSimulator object. So what I want to do is something like:
QuantumOperationWrapper(simulator, 3);
simulator.GetResults();
But when I do this, the results are empty. My guess is that, somehow, the simulator is being passed by value, or treated as immutable, or something that prevents QuantumOperationWrapper from altering internal parameters of the simulator.
Is there any way to I can ensure that a delegate/Func will alter the internal state of its arguments?
EDIT: I can make a delegate for the Run method, as follows:
public delegate System.Threading.Tasks.Task<Microsoft.Quantum.Simulation.Core.QVoid> RunQop(QCTraceSimulator sim, long n);
Then I can construct static void someMethod(RunQop runner, ...), and pass QuantumOperation.Run as the first argument.
However, I have the same problem, that the QCTraceSimulator I pass as an argument does not keep any of the simulation results it makes when I call this.

So if I understand you correctly you want to execute a bunch of methods with parameters on different simulators. Here is how to do this:
We first off need a List of the operations we want to perform.
var methodList = new List<Func<QCTraceSimulator, long, Task<QVoid>>>
{
QuantumOperation.Run,
// Add more methods here
}
This is a List of Funcs. A Func is a delegate type that represents a method with a parameter and a return value. Here our methods need to look like this to be able to be added to our List:
public Task<QVoid> SomeName(QCTraceSimulator sim, long parameter)
{ ...}
We also need a list of parameters you want to try this with:
var paramsList = new List<long>
{
1,
2,
-2147483648,
2147483647
};
Now we can iterate through these and run our method like so:
public void RunMethodsOnSimulator(QCTraceSimulator sim)
{
// Iterate through every method
foreach (var method in methodList)
{
// Iterate through every parameter
foreach (var parameter in paramsList)
{
// Execute the given method with the given parameter
Task<QVoid> result = method(sim, parameter);
}
}
}
You can now do whatever you want with the result. This will result in every method being called with every parameter once
Please keep in mind that this answer only solves this problem for methods that return a Task<QVoid> and take a QCTraceSimulator and a long as parameter. This solution however avoids having to modify any QuantumOperation classes (and hopefully teaches you a little about delegates)
Here is what the paramsList and the RunMethodsOnSimulator method would like with 2 or more parameters:
methodList = new List<Func<QCTraceSimulator, long, int, Task<QVoid>>>
{
QuantumOperation.Run,
// Add more methods here
}
paramsList = new List<Tuple<long, int>>
{
new Tuple<long, int>(1, 1),
new Tuple<long, int>(2, 1),
new Tuple<long, int>(1, 2),
new Tuple<long, int>(-2147483648, 1)
}
public void RunMethodsOnSimulator(QCTraceSimulator sim)
{
// Iterate through every method
foreach (var method in methodList)
{
// Iterate through every parameter
foreach (var parameter in paramsList)
{
// Execute the given method with the given parameter
Task<QVoid> result = method(sim, parameter.Item1, parameter.Item2);
}
}
}

The way the Q# simulation tests deal with this is by having a method that receives a delegate with some code you want to execute on the simulator, in particular, the simulator unittests have the RunWithMultipleSimulators method that is broadly used in places like CoreTests.cs; this is an example of how it is used:
[Fact]
public void RandomOperation()
{
Helper.RunWithMultipleSimulators((s) =>
{
Circuits.RandomOperationTest.Run(s).Wait(); // Throws if it doesn't succeed
});
}

I think you're having two separate problems: you're not getting the results back, and dealing with classes is making looping through different operations difficult. Let me try to address them separately.
Results from running an operation are returned from the Run method, not stored in the simulator. More specifically, if you invoke an operation that returns a Q# int, the return value of the Run method will be Task<long>. You can then use the value property of the task to get the actual result, or use the async/await pattern, whichever you like.
All of the operation classes can be instantiated, and they all implement the ICallable interface. This interface has an Apply method that gets passed the arguments to the operation and returns the (asynchronous) results. Each instance has to get properly instantiated with a reference to the simulator; the easiest way to do this is to call the Get generic method on the simulator instance.
If you look at SimulatorBase.cs, in the implementation of the Run method on line 101, you can see how this is done. In this method, T is the class of the operation; I is the class of the operation input; and O is the class of the operation return value. You could use basically the same code to create a list of objects that you then call Apply on with varying arguments.

I did not understand everything but from the little that I understood you can use a non static wrapper and each wrapper allows accessing to a distinct Qop static class.
static public void TestQop()
{
someMethod(new Qop1(), 0, 0, 0);
someMethod(new Qop2(), 1, 1, 1);
}
static void someMethod<T>(T qop, int simulator, int param1, int param2)
where T : QopBase
{
qop.Run(simulator, param1, param2);
}
abstract class QopBase
{
public abstract void Run(int simulator, int param1, int param2);
}
class Qop1 : QopBase
{
public override void Run(int simulator, int param1, int param2)
{
QuantumOperation1.Run(simulator, param1, param2);
}
}
class Qop2 : QopBase
{
public override void Run(int simulator, int param1, int param2)
{
QuantumOperation2.Run(simulator, param1, param2);
}
}

Calling a method on an object whose type is generically defined requires you to use a generic constraint which ensures that the used generic type defines the expected method.
At its core, this relies on polymorphism to ensure that even though the specific type can vary, it is known that all usable generic types (which can be limited via constraints) contain this specific method you wish to call.
Static classes and methods lack this feature. They cannot inherit, nor can they implement interfaces, nor can you pass them via method parameters (and trying to do it via generic is not the solution). There is no way to create an "inheritance-like" link between two static methods of two different static classes; even if the methods have the same signature otherwise.
Are there other ways? Yes. In order of preferability:
(1) The straightforward and clean solution is avoiding statics and instead use instanced classes. If you are able to do this, this is the superior option.
(2) If you can't avoid statics, you can still wrap your static in an instanced wrapper, e.g.:
public class IWrapper
{
void DoTheThing(int foo);
}
public QuantumOperationWrapper : IWrapper
{
public void DoTheThing(int foo)
{
QuantumOperationWrapper.Run(foo);
}
}
public OtherStaticOperationWrapper : IWrapper
{
public void DoTheThing(int foo)
{
OtherStaticOperationWrapper.Run(foo);
}
}
This effectively "unstatics" the static code, in a way that you can now rely on the knowledge that all your wrappers implement/inherit the common BaseWrapper and thus both implement the DoTheThing method.
Your generic method can then rely on this:
public void DoTheGenericThing<T>(T obj) where T : IWrapper
{
obj.DoTheThing(123);
}
Note: In this particular case you don't even need generics to begin with. I assume you don't really need generics in this case, but since the answer can apply to both generic and non-generic cases, I've left the generic parameter in the solution. There may be specific cases in which you still need to use generics, though I suspect this is not one of them.
(3) A third but very dirty option is to use reflection to call the method anyway and just assume you never pass in a type which does not have the expected static method. But this is a really bad practice approach which will be fraught with bugs, it will be nigh impossible to debug, and it's absolutely not refactor-friendly.

Maybe you can try to deal with the situation using Interfaces. Something like that:
public interface IQuantumOperation
{
void Run();
void Run(MyFancyClazz simulator, MyFancyParam param1, MyFancyParam param2);
//And other possible methods
}
Then you can make use of this Interface as a type parameter's contract
static void someMethod<Qop>(Qop myQopParameter) where Qop : IQuantumOperation
{
...
//Now you can call your Run method
myQopParameter.Run(...);
...
//Or other fancy Run method with parameters like below
myQopParameter.Run(simulator, param1, param2);
}
Finally make sure that your QuantumOperation class implements the IQuantumOperation interface

Passing a Func<int, int> to Task.Run() in C# without using lambda expressions

I try to get my head around the Task/Func/Action/await functionality of C# but still need your help:
I have a button click event handler in my gui thread that, when called, does the following:
Func<int> t = new Func<int>(CountToBillion);
int result = await Task.Run(t);
//do something with result value...
The method itself is declared as:
private int CountToBillion()
{
//count to 1 billion and return 0
}
So far, this runs without error. But if I want to pass a parameter to CountToBillion() everything I try goes horribly wrong.
Func<int, int> t = new Func<int, int>(CountToBillion);
int result = Task.Run(t???);
// ...
private int CountToBillion(int workerId)
{
//count to 1 billion and return 0
}
For now, I would like to NOT use lambda expressions, because I do not understand them yet. I always see this solution:
await Task.Run(() => methodcall(...));
But there must be away to use this without lambda expressions, or am I completely off track here? How would I use Task.Run() with plain old simple objects?

The Task.Run method doesn't have an overload that allows you to take a Func<T, R>.
You can use a closure, but that's something you say you don't want to use, just for practice sake:
var someInput = 42;
// And there are side-effects to calling the Result property getter
// but that's a totally different issue I am ignoring for now
// because it depends on the application context
var result = Task.Run(() => CountToBillion(someInput)).Result;
So then, re-structure your code. Do what the C# compiler does to closures. Do that transformation yourself manually.
So instead of writing your CountToBillion method like so:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
}
static int CountToBillion(int someInput) { ... }
Do this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = new Foo(42);
var result = Task.Run(foo.CountToBillion).Result;
}
class Foo
{
public Foo(int someInput) { SomeInput = someInput; }
public int SomeInput { get; set; }
public int CountToBillion() { ... }
}

I am skeptical of your desire to avoid the use of anonymous methods or lambda expressions. They are convenient, idiomatic, and functionally you're going to wind up doing something that is essentially the same anyway, but without the compiler's help.
You can read the Task.Run() docs as well as anyone else, I presume, so you can easily see that there's not any overload for that method that provides for a parameterized invocation of the task delegate. So you will need to provide that for yourself.
You can do it exactly the same way that the C# compiler would do it for you, if you'd be willing to use a lambda expression. In particular, you would need to declare a type to hold the parameter, and which has a suitable method to use for the task invocation.
For example:
class CountToBillionWrapper
{
private readonly int _workerId;
public CountToBillionWrapper(int workerId)
{
_workerId = workerId;
}
public int CountToBillion()
{
// do whatever, using the _workerId field as if it had been passed to the method
}
}
Then you can do this:
CountToBillionWrapper wrapper = new CountToBillionWrapper(workerId);
int result = await Task.Run(wrapper.CountToBillion);
Since this is, essentially, how the C# compiler implements a closure that would be needed when using a lambda expression that captures the variables that you want to pass to the method, I don't really see the point in doing it this way. Seems like extra work for harder-to-read code to me.
But maybe you prefer the explicitness. If so, the above will work to do what you're asking.

Can methods be called via an array in C#?

I have a program that will need to run different methods depending on what I want it to talk to, and I want to know if there is a way to store some sort of method pointer or something of that sort in an array. So I want an array where each element would be something like this:
[Boolean: Do_this?] [Function_pointer] [Data to pass to the function]
So basically, I can put this into a for loop and not call each function individually. Another block of code would fill in the Boolean of whether to run this function or not, and then my for loop would go through and run the function with its appropriate data if the Boolean is true.
I know delegates are similar to function pointers, but if that is the answer here, I'm not entirely sure how I would construct what I want to construct.
Is this possible in C#?

Sure is, although, to do it this way, you need all methods to have the same signature:
Lets say you had two methods:
public int Moop(string s){ return 1; }
public int Moop2(string s){ return 2; }
You could do:
var funcs = new Func<string, int>[]{ Moop, Moop2 };
And to call:
var val = funcs[0]("hello");

You could declare a specific object type to hold in a delegate, a flag that indicates whether to do that or now and the data. Note that what you are describing is very similar to events as they are also defined by a callback and some event data.
The skeletal model would look something like this, assuming all methods you want to call have the same signature (you can work around that, if you need a whole bunch of various signatures by using reflection):
// This reflects the signature of the methods you want to call
delegate void theFunction(ActionData data);
class ActionData
{
// put whatever data you would want to pass
// to the functions in this wrapper
}
class Action
{
public Action(theFunction action, ActionData data, bool doIt)
{
this.action = action;
this.data = data;
this.doIt = doIt;
}
public bool doIt
{
get;
set;
}
public ActionData data
{
get;
set;
}
public theFunction action
{
get;
set;
}
public void run()
{
if (doIt)
action(data);
}
}
And a regular use case would look something like this:
class Program
{
static void someMethod(ActionData data)
{
Console.WriteLine("SUP");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Action[] actions = new Action[] {
new Action(Program.someMethod, new ActionData(), true)
};
foreach(Action a in actions)
a.run();
}
}

Yes, you can.
If all your functions share the same signature you might want to store delegates in your collection, otherwise I would go for System.Reflection.MethodInfo, which you can use later on by calling Invoke method. Parameters would be stored as array of objects - that's what Invoke expects.
If using reflection is too slow you can use Reflection.Emit to generate dynamic methods at runtime.

I would just create a List<Action>. Action is a delegate that takes no parameters and returns no results. You can use currying and lambdas such that the actual actions can call a method that has parameters. In the case where you don't actually want to run it, just don't add it to the list in the first place (or add an action that does nothing I guess).
To add an item it might look something like:
list.Add(() => someobject.someMethod(firstArgument, secondArgument));
list.Add(() => anotherObject.anotherMethod(oneArgument));
Then you can just run all of the actions when you want to:
foreach(Action action in list)
{
action();
}

This is exactly what you would use delegates for. Delegates are, more or less, type-checked function pointers. You can create some delegates and put them into an array.
Func<int, int> [] funcs = new Func<int,int>[] { x => 2 * x, x => x * x };
foreach(var fn in funcs)
{
Console.WriteLine(fn(3));
Console.WriteLine(fn(8));
}

What is the purpose of delegates in .NET

So I'm a little bit confused about delegates in C#.... what do they do and how are they useful? I've read a few tutorials, and I don't really get exactly what they're supposed to do (everyone relates them to function pointers in C, and I've never programmed in C).
So... what do delegates do? What's a scenario in which I should use them? How would I then use them?

The other answers are good, but here's another way to think about delegates that might help. Imagine that a delegate is nothing more than an interface. When you see:
delegate void Action();
think:
interface IAction
{
void Invoke();
}
And when you see:
Action myAction = foo.Bar;
think:
class FooBarAction : IAction
{
public Foo Receiver { get; private set; }
public FooBarAction(Foo foo)
{
this.Receiver = foo;
}
public void Invoke()
{
this.Receiver.Bar();
}
}
...
IAction myAction = new FooBarAction(foo);
And when you see
myAction();
think
myAction.Invoke();
The actual details of what types get constructed are a bit different, but fundamentally that's what's happening. A delegate is simply an object with a method called Invoke, and when you call that method, it calls some other method on some other object on your behalf. That's why it's called a "delegate" -- because it delegates the call to another method of another object.

Delegates are sort of like objects that represent a method call. One useful way they can be used are as callbacks. For example, imagine you have a method that does something asynchronous, and you want the caller to be able to specify what they want to happen once it completes (Action is a type of delegate):
public void DoSomething(Action whatToDoWhenDone)
{
// Your code
// See how the delegate is called like a method
whatToDoWhenDone();
}
A user of DoSomething can now specify the callback as a parameter:
public void AnotherMethod()
{
DoSomething(ShowSuccess); // ShowSuccess will be called when done
}
public void ShowSuccess()
{
Console.WriteLine("Success!");
}
You can also use lamba expressions as a shorter way of writing your delegate:
public void AnotherMethod()
{
DoSomething(() => Console.WriteLine("Success!"));
// Also DoSomething(delegate() { Console.WriteLine("Success!"); });
}
Callbacks are far from the only use cases for delegates. Hopefully this shows you some of their power: the ability to have code to be executed as a variable.

Delegates allow you to treat functions as if they were any other variable. A delegate type defines the signature of the function, that is, what the function returns, and the number and type of arguments that it takes:
// This is the delegate for a function that takes a string and returns a string.
// It can also be written using the framework-provided Generic delegate Func, as
// Func<String, String>
delegate String StringToStringDelegate(String input);
You can define a variable of this type, and assign it to an existing method. I use the generic as an example, because that is the more common usage in .net since 2.0:
String Reverse(String input) {
return input.Reverse();
}
Func<String, String> someStringMethod = new Func<String, String>(Reverse);
// Prints "cba":
Console.WriteLine(someStringMethod("abc"));
You can also pass functions around this way:
String Reverse(String input) {
return input.Reverse();
}
String UpperCase(String input) {
return input.ToUpper();
}
String DoSomethingToABC(Func<String, String> inputFunction) {
return inputFunction("abc");
}
var someStringMethod = new Func<String, String>(Reverse);
// Prints "cba":
Console.WriteLine(DoSomethingToABC(someStringMethod));
var someOtherStringMethod = new Func<String, String>(UpperCase);
// Prints "ABC":
Console.WriteLine(DoSomethingToABC(someOtherStringMethod));

In a big application it is often required to other parts of the application based on some condition or something else. The delegate specifies the address of the method to be called. In simple manner a normal event handler implements the delegates in the inner layers.

The oversimplified answer is that a delegate is basically a "pointer" to a block of code, and the benefit is that you can pass this block of code into other functions by assigning your block of code to a variable.
The reason people relate Delegates to C function pointers is because this is in essence what delegation is all about, I.e.: Pointers to methods.
As an example:
public void DoSomething(Action yourCodeBlock)
{
yourCodeBlock();
}
public void CallingMethod()
{
this.DoSomething(
{
... statements
});
this.DoSomething(
{
... other statements
});
}
There are naturally lots of ways to invoke delegates as all of the tutorials will show you. The point is though that it allows you to "delegate" functionality in such a way that you can call into methods without necessarily knowing how they work, but simply trusting that they will be taken care of. In other words, I might create a class that implements a "DoSomething()" function, but I can leave it up to someone else to decide what DoSomething() will do later on.
I hope that helps. :-)

Delegates are a way to call back into your code when a long running operation completes or when an event occurs. For example, you pass a delegate to a method that asynchronously downloads a file in the background. When the download is complete, your delegate method would be invoked and it could then take some action such as processing the file's contents.
An event handler is a special type of delegate. For example, an event handler delegate can respond to an event like a mouse click or key press. Events are by far the most common type of delegate. In fact, you will typically see the event keyword used far more often in C# code than the delegate keyword.

You can think of it as a type in which you may store references to functions. That way you can in effect, store a function in a variable so you may call it later like any other function.
e.g.,
public delegate void AnEmptyVoidFunction();
This creates a delegate type called AnEmptyVoidFunction and it may be used to store references to functions that return void and has no arguments.
You could then store a reference to a function with that signature.
public static void SomeMethod() { }
public static int ADifferentMethod(int someArg) { return someArg; }
AnEmptyVoidFunction func1 = new AnEmptyVoidFunction(SomeMethod);
// or leave out the constructor call to let the compiler figure it out
AnEmptyVoidFunction func2 = SomeMethod;
// note that the above only works if it is a function defined
// within a class, it doesn't work with other delegates
//AnEmptyVoidFunction func3 = new AnEmptyVoidFunction(ADifferentMethod);
// error wrong function type
Not only can it store declared functions but also anonymous functions (i.e., lambdas or anonymous delegates)
// storing a lambda function (C#3 and up)
AnEmptyVoidFunction func4 = () => { };
// storing an anonymous delegate (C#2)
AnEmptyVoidFunction func5 = delegate() { };
To call these delegates, you can just invoke them like any other function call. Though since it is a variable, you may want to check if it is null beforehand.
AnEmptyVoidFunction func1 = () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
};
func1(); // "Hello World"
AnEmptyVoidFunction func2 = null;
func2(); // NullReferenceException
public static void CallIt(AnEmptyDelegate func)
{
// check first if it is not null
if (func != null)
{
func();
}
}
You would use them any time you needed to pass around a method that you wish to invoke. Almost in the same way that you may pass instances of objects so you may do what you wish with them. The typical use case for delegates is when declaring events. I have written another answer describing the pattern so you can look at that for more information on how to write those.

When & why to use delegates? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Where do I use delegates? [closed]
(8 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm relatively new in C#, & I'm wondering when to use Delegates appropriately.
they are widely used in events declaration, but when should I use them in my own code and why are they useful? why not to use something else?
I'm also wondering when I have to use delegates and I have no other alternative.
Thank you for the help!
EDIT: I think I've found a necessary use of Delegates here

A delegate is a reference to a method. Whereas objects can easily be sent as parameters into methods, constructor or whatever, methods are a bit more tricky. But every once in a while you might feel the need to send a method as a parameter to another method, and that's when you'll need delegates.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace DelegateApp {
/// <summary>
/// A class to define a person
/// </summary>
public class Person {
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
class Program {
//Our delegate
public delegate bool FilterDelegate(Person p);
static void Main(string[] args) {
//Create 4 Person objects
Person p1 = new Person() { Name = "John", Age = 41 };
Person p2 = new Person() { Name = "Jane", Age = 69 };
Person p3 = new Person() { Name = "Jake", Age = 12 };
Person p4 = new Person() { Name = "Jessie", Age = 25 };
//Create a list of Person objects and fill it
List<Person> people = new List<Person>() { p1, p2, p3, p4 };
//Invoke DisplayPeople using appropriate delegate
DisplayPeople("Children:", people, IsChild);
DisplayPeople("Adults:", people, IsAdult);
DisplayPeople("Seniors:", people, IsSenior);
Console.Read();
}
/// <summary>
/// A method to filter out the people you need
/// </summary>
/// <param name="people">A list of people</param>
/// <param name="filter">A filter</param>
/// <returns>A filtered list</returns>
static void DisplayPeople(string title, List<Person> people, FilterDelegate filter) {
Console.WriteLine(title);
foreach (Person p in people) {
if (filter(p)) {
Console.WriteLine("{0}, {1} years old", p.Name, p.Age);
}
}
Console.Write("\n\n");
}
//==========FILTERS===================
static bool IsChild(Person p) {
return p.Age < 18;
}
static bool IsAdult(Person p) {
return p.Age >= 18;
}
static bool IsSenior(Person p) {
return p.Age >= 65;
}
}
}
Output:
Children:
Jake, 12 years old
Adults:
John, 41 years old
Jane, 69 years old
Jessie, 25 years old
Seniors:
Jane, 69 years old

I agree with everything that is said already, just trying to put some other words on it.
A delegate can be seen as a placeholder for a/some method(s).
By defining a delegate, you are saying to the user of your class, "Please feel free to assign any method that matches this signature to the delegate and it will be called each time my delegate is called".
Typical use is of course events. All the OnEventX delegate to the methods the user defines.
Delegates are useful to offer to the user of your objects some ability to customize their behavior.
Most of the time, you can use other ways to achieve the same purpose and I do not believe you can ever be forced to create delegates. It is just the easiest way in some situations to get the thing done.

Say you want to write a procedure to integrate some real-valued function f (x) over some interval [a, b]. Say we want to use the 3-Point Gaussian method to do this (any will do, of course).
Ideally we want some function that looks like:
// 'f' is the integrand we want to integrate over [a, b] with 'n' subintervals.
static double Gauss3(Integrand f, double a, double b, int n) {
double res = 0;
// compute result
// ...
return res;
}
So we can pass in any Integrand, f, and get its definite integral over the closed interval.
Just what type should Integrand be?
Without Delegates
Well, without delegates, we'd need some sort of interface with a single method, say eval declared as follows:
// Interface describing real-valued functions of one variable.
interface Integrand {
double eval(double x);
}
Then we'd need to create a whole bunch of classes implementing this interface, as follows:
// Some function
class MyFunc1 : Integrand {
public double eval(double x) {
return /* some_result */ ;
}
}
// Some other function
class MyFunc2 : Integrand {
public double eval(double x) {
return /* some_result */ ;
}
}
// etc
Then to use them in our Gauss3 method, we need to invoke it as follows:
double res1 = Gauss3(new MyFunc1(), -1, 1, 16);
double res2 = Gauss3(new MyFunc2(), 0, Math.PI, 16);
And Gauss3 needs to do the look like the following:
static double Gauss3(Integrand f, double a, double b, int n) {
// Use the integrand passed in:
f.eval(x);
}
So we need to do all that just to use our arbitrary functions in Guass3.
With Delegates
public delegate double Integrand(double x);
Now we can define some static (or not) functions adhering to that prototype:
class Program {
public delegate double Integrand(double x);
// Define implementations to above delegate
// with similar input and output types
static double MyFunc1(double x) { /* ... */ }
static double MyFunc2(double x) { /* ... */ }
// ... etc ...
public static double Gauss3(Integrand f, ...) {
// Now just call the function naturally, no f.eval() stuff.
double a = f(x);
// ...
}
// Let's use it
static void Main() {
// Just pass the function in naturally (well, its reference).
double res = Gauss3(MyFunc1, a, b, n);
double res = Gauss3(MyFunc2, a, b, n);
}
}
No interfaces, no clunky .eval stuff, no object instantiation, just simple function-pointer like usage, for a simple task.
Of course, delegates are more than just function pointers under the hood, but that's a separate issue (function chaining and events).

Delegates are extremely useful when wanting to declare a block of code that you want to pass around. For example when using a generic retry mechanism.
Pseudo:
function Retry(Delegate func, int numberOfTimes)
try
{
func.Invoke();
}
catch { if(numberOfTimes blabla) func.Invoke(); etc. etc. }
Or when you want to do late evaluation of code blocks, like a function where you have some Transform action, and want to have a BeforeTransform and an AfterTransform action that you can evaluate within your Transform function, without having to know whether the BeginTransform is filled, or what it has to transform.
And of course when creating event handlers. You don't want to evaluate the code now, but only when needed, so you register a delegate that can be invoked when the event occurs.

Delegates Overview
Delegates have the following properties:
Delegates are similar to C++ function pointers, but are type safe.
Delegates allow methods to be passed as parameters.
Delegates can be used to define callback methods.
Delegates can be chained together; for example, multiple methods can be called on a single event.
Methods don't need to match the delegate signature exactly. For more information, see Covariance and Contra variance.
C# version 2.0 introduces the concept of Anonymous Methods, which permit code blocks to be passed as parameters in place of a separately defined method.

I've just go my head around these, and so I'll share an example as you already have descriptions but at the moment one advantage I see is to get around the Circular Reference style warnings where you can't have 2 projects referencing each other.
Let's assume an application downloads an XML, and then saves the XML to a database.
I have 2 projects here which build my solution: FTP and a SaveDatabase.
So, our application starts by looking for any downloads and downloading the file(s) then it calls the SaveDatabase project.
Now, our application needs to notify the FTP site when a file is saved to the database by uploading a file with Meta data (ignore why, it's a request from the owner of the FTP site). The issue is at what point and how? We need a new method called NotifyFtpComplete() but in which of our projects should it be saved too - FTP or SaveDatabase? Logically, the code should live in our FTP project. But, this would mean our NotifyFtpComplete will have to be triggered or, it will have to wait until the save is complete, and then query the database to ensure it is in there. What we need to do is tell our SaveDatabase project to call the NotifyFtpComplete() method direct but we can't; we'd get a ciruclar reference and the NotifyFtpComplete() is a private method. What a shame, this would have worked. Well, it can.
During our application's code, we would have passed parameters between methods, but what if one of those parameters was the NotifyFtpComplete method. Yup, we pass the method, with all of the code inside as well. This would mean we could execute the method at any point, from any project. Well, this is what the delegate is. This means, we can pass the NotifyFtpComplete() method as a parameter to our SaveDatabase() class. At the point it saves, it simply executes the delegate.
See if this crude example helps (pseudo code). We will also assume that the application starts with the Begin() method of the FTP class.
class FTP
{
public void Begin()
{
string filePath = DownloadFileFromFtpAndReturnPathName();
SaveDatabase sd = new SaveDatabase();
sd.Begin(filePath, NotifyFtpComplete());
}
private void NotifyFtpComplete()
{
//Code to send file to FTP site
}
}
class SaveDatabase
{
private void Begin(string filePath, delegateType NotifyJobComplete())
{
SaveToTheDatabase(filePath);
/* InvokeTheDelegate -
* here we can execute the NotifyJobComplete
* method at our preferred moment in the application,
* despite the method being private and belonging
* to a different class.
*/
NotifyJobComplete.Invoke();
}
}
So, with that explained, we can do it for real now with this Console Application using C#
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
/* I've made this class private to demonstrate that
* the SaveToDatabase cannot have any knowledge of this Program class.
*/
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Note, this NotifyDelegate type is defined in the SaveToDatabase project
NotifyDelegate nofityDelegate = new NotifyDelegate(NotifyIfComplete);
SaveToDatabase sd = new SaveToDatabase();
sd.Start(nofityDelegate);
Console.ReadKey();
}
/* this is the method which will be delegated -
* the only thing it has in common with the NofityDelegate
* is that it takes 0 parameters and that it returns void.
* However, it is these 2 which are essential.
* It is really important to notice that it writes
* a variable which, due to no constructor,
* has not yet been called (so _notice is not initialized yet).
*/
private static void NotifyIfComplete()
{
Console.WriteLine(_notice);
}
private static string _notice = "Notified";
}
public class SaveToDatabase
{
public void Start(NotifyDelegate nd)
{
/* I shouldn't write to the console from here,
* just for demonstration purposes
*/
Console.WriteLine("SaveToDatabase Complete");
Console.WriteLine(" ");
nd.Invoke();
}
}
public delegate void NotifyDelegate();
}
I suggest you step through the code and see when _notice is called and when the method (delegate) is called as this, I hope, will make things very clear.
However, lastly, we can make it more useful by changing the delegate type to include a parameter.
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
/* I've made this class private to demonstrate that the SaveToDatabase
* cannot have any knowledge of this Program class.
*/
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SaveToDatabase sd = new SaveToDatabase();
/* Please note, that although NotifyIfComplete()
* takes a string parameter, we do not declare it,
* all we want to do is tell C# where the method is
* so it can be referenced later,
* we will pass the parameter later.
*/
var notifyDelegateWithMessage = new NotifyDelegateWithMessage(NotifyIfComplete);
sd.Start(notifyDelegateWithMessage );
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void NotifyIfComplete(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
public class SaveToDatabase
{
public void Start(NotifyDelegateWithMessage nd)
{
/* To simulate a saving fail or success, I'm just going
* to check the current time (well, the seconds) and
* store the value as variable.
*/
string message = string.Empty;
if (DateTime.Now.Second > 30)
message = "Saved";
else
message = "Failed";
//It is at this point we pass the parameter to our method.
nd.Invoke(message);
}
}
public delegate void NotifyDelegateWithMessage(string message);
}

I consider delegates to be Anonymous Interfaces. In many cases you can use them whenever you need an interface with a single method, but you don't want the overhead of defining that interface.

A delegate is a simple class that is used to point to methods with a specific signature, becoming essentially a type-safe function pointer. A delegate's purpose is to facilitate a call back to another method (or methods), after one has been completed, in a structured way.
While it could be possible to create an extensive set of code to perform this functionality, you don’t need too. You can use a delegate.
Creating a delegate is easy to do. Identify the class as a delegate with the "delegate" keyword. Then specify the signature of the type.