I have trouble using System.Func.
public Func<int> OnCreated=new Func<int>(int ASD){ Debug.Log (ASD); };
Is this the proper way to use it? I want to make a dynamic function that can be called. Also can the System.Func be serialized via XML?
Maybe you're looking for Action<> instead?
Action<int> myAction = myIntParam => Debug.Log(myIntParam);
myAction(myInteger);
If you want to take an input parameter, and return something, you should use Func<>
Func<int, int> myFunc = myIntParam => {
Debug.Log(myIntParam);
return 5;
};
int five = myFunc(myInteger);
Also, if you want to serialize/deserialize, you need to take it one step further. Namely, by def Func does not really have any meaningful information for it to be serialized, you should wrap it in Expression. You can get started by googling for "C# serialize expression", eg: https://expressiontree.codeplex.com
Just like any other thing in .NET Func is an Object. Func is an object of type Delegate.You can serialize/deserialize any serializable object. Func returns a value and can take up to 16 parameters.
The way you would use it is like this :
Func<int> w = new Func<int>(() => { return 1; });
You should first be familiar with the use of delegates. Check this : when & why to use delegates?
P.S Serializing delegates is a risky thing to do since they are pointers to functions that are inside your program.|
You can check how you can do the serialization over here : Could we save delegates in a file (C#)
I have a method that looks like this (assume that I have the necessary method GetMySerializedDataArry() and my serializer JsonSerializer):
public static List<T> GetMyListOfData<T>()
{
var msgList = new List<T>();
foreach (string s in GetMySerializedDataArray())
{
msgList.Add(JsonSerializer.Deserialize<T>(s));
}
return msgList;
}
This works fine and as expected.
However, I want to use the same method to optionally, if and only if the generic type is specified as string, return the data unserialized like this (which does not compile and has syntax problems):
public static List<T> GetMyListOfData<T>(bool leaveSerialized)
{
if (typeof (T) != typeof(string) && leaveSerialized)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Parameter must be false when generic type is not List<string>", "leaveSerialized");
}
var msgList = new List<T>();
foreach (string s in GetMySerializedDataArray())
{
if (leaveSerialized)
{
// Casting does not work: "Cannot cast expression of type 'System.Collections.Generic.List<T>' to type 'List<string>'"
// I've tried various permutations of "is" and "as"... but they don't work with generic types
// But I know in this case that I DO have a list of strings..... just the compiler doesn't.
// How do I assure the compiler?
((List<string>)msgList).Add(s);
}
else
{
msgList.Add(JsonSerializer.Deserialize<T>(s));
}
}
return msgList;
}
My questions are in the inline comment.... basically though the compiler clearly doesn't like the cast of generic to non-generic, it won't let me use permutations of "is" and "are" operators either, I know I actually have the correct string in this case.... how to assure the compiler it is OK?
Many thanks in advance.
EDIT: SOLUTION
Thanks to Lee and Lorentz, both. I will be creating two public methods, but implementing the code in a private method with the admittedly icky decision tree about whether to leave serialization. My reason is that my real-world method is far more complex than what I posed here to SO, and I don't want to duplicate those business rules.
FINAL EDIT: CHANGED SOLUTION
Although both answers were very helpful, I have now been able to detangle business rules, and as a result the "correct" answer for me is now the first -- two different methods. Thanks again to all.
You should not return a list of strings as a list of T. I would suggest that you use two separate methods and skip the parameter:
public static List<T> GetMyListOfData<T>()
public static List<string> GetSerializedMyListOfData()
The advantages of this approach is
It's more readable (imo) GetSerializedMyListOfData() vs GetMyListOfData<string>(true)
You also know the intent of the caller at compile time and don't have to throw an exception when the type argument don't match the intent to leave the data serialized
You can cast to object first:
((List<string>)(object)msgList).Add(s);
however a cleaner solution could be to create another method for dealing with strings, this would also allow you to remove the leaveSerialized parameter.
In C#, we have var data type but we can't use it as functions return type.
Why this is not possible?
public var myFunction()
{
var = some operations
}
I believe it's partly due to the design of the compiler. Eric Lippert blogged about why fields can't use implicit typing, and I suspect some of the same arguments hold for methods.
But you could easily end up with ambiguity anyway. For example:
var Method1(bool callMethod2)
{
return callMethod2 ? Method2() : null;
}
var Method2()
{
return Method1(false);
}
What should the type be here?
A simpler example:
var Method1(bool throwException)
{
if (!throwException)
{
return Method1(true);
}
throw new Exception("Bang!");
}
Admittedly this sort of ambiguity could simply be disallowed, but I suspect that the design team felt that the added complexity of both design and implementation wasn't worth the benefit. Don't forget that they're running with limited resources - given a choice between var for methods and async/await, I'd pick the latter in a heartbeat. (Admittedly there are other features I'd have picked instead of dynamic, but that's a different matter...)
Note that return type inference is performed for lambda expressions, so the very idea of it isn't crazy. For example:
IEnumerable<string> x = new[] { "x", "y", "z" };
var result = x.Select(s => { return s.Length; }); // Long form
There the compiler infers the complete type of the lambda expression when it performs overload resolution on Select, converting it to a Func<string, int>. It's not inconceivable to apply the same ideas to methods - just complicated.
var is NOT a datatype in C#. That's why you cannot use it as a return parameter. The compiler infers the type at compile time from the right handside of the assignment and bearing in mind that it is known at compile time you need to use the real type as return value. In C# 4.0 you could use the dynamic type:
public dynamic myFunction()
{
var = some operations
}
This may have been answered before. I see many "dynamic method overload resolution" questions, but none that deal specifically with passing a dynamic argument. In the following code, in Test, the last call to M cannot be resolved (it doesn't compile). The error is: the call is ambiguous between [the first two overloads of M].
static void M(Func<int> f) { }
static void M(Func<string> f) { }
static void M(Func<dynamic> f) { }
static dynamic DynamicObject() {
return new object();
}
static void Test() {
M(() => 0);
M(() => "");
M(() => DynamicObject()); //doesn't compile
}
Why, since the type isn't statically known, does it not resolve to the overload accepting dynamic?
Is it even possible for an overloaded method to use dynamic?
What is the best way to resolve this?
The problem here is type inference. The compiler is trying to find out which overload to use based on the argument, but it's also trying to find out what the type of the argument is based on the chosen overload. In the case of M(() => DynamicObject()), the process goes something like this:
The argument to the method is a lambda with zero parameters. This gives us all three overloads as possibilities.
The body of the lambda returns dynamic. Because there is an implicit conversion from dynamic to any other type, we now know all three overloads are good.
Try choosing the best overload. In most cases, “best” means the most derived type. Because both int and string derive from object, the overloads with int and string are considered best.
We now have two “best” overloads, which means the compiler can't actually choose one of them. The compilation fails.
Now, regarding possible solutions to your problem:
Make the type of the lambda explicit, either using cast or typed local variable:
M((Func<dynamic>)(() => DynamicObject()));
or
Func<dynamic> f = () => DynamicObject();
M(f);
Rename the dynamic overload to something like DynamicM. This way, you don't have to deal with overload resolution.
This one feels somewhat wrong to me: make sure the dynamic overload is the only one that fits, by casting to object:
M(() => (object)DynamicObject())
From the definition in MSDN:
dynamic
Type dynamic behaves like type object in most circumstances. However,
operations that contain expressions of type dynamic are not resolved
or type checked by the compiler. The compiler packages together
information about the operation, and that information is later used to
evaluate the operation at run time. As part of the process, variables
of type dynamic are compiled into variables of type object. Therefore,
type dynamic exists only at compile time, not at run time
So dynamic doesn't exist when you compile, cause it needs to convert it into destination *type*, and that's why is not able to resolve it. What is destination type ?
In fact if you do something like this:
static void M(Func<int> f) { }
static void M(Func<string> f) { }
static void M(Func<object> f) { } // could be also declared like dynamic here, works by the way
static object DynamicObject()
{
return new object();
}
static void Test()
{
M(() => 0);
M(() => "");
M(() => DynamicObject());
}
It perfectly works as you want, as object is present like a type already at compile time, in difference of dynamic type which have to be converted.
I have the following code:
Func<string, bool> comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
};
However, the following does not compile:
var comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
};
Why can't the compiler figure out it is a Func<string, bool>? It takes one string parameter, and returns a boolean. Instead, it gives me the error:
Cannot assign anonymous method to an
implicitly-typed local variable.
I have one guess and that is if the var version compiled, it would lack consistency if I had the following:
var comparer = delegate(string arg1, string arg2, string arg3, string arg4, string arg5) {
return false;
};
The above wouldn't make sense since Func<> allows only up to 4 arguments (in .NET 3.5, which is what I am using). Perhaps someone could clarify the problem. Thanks.
UPDATE: This answer was written over ten years ago and should be considered to be of historical interest; in C# 10 the compiler will infer some delegate types.
Others have already pointed out that there are infinitely many possible delegate types that you could have meant; what is so special about Func that it deserves to be the default instead of Predicate or Action or any other possibility? And, for lambdas, why is it obvious that the intention is to choose the delegate form, rather than the expression tree form?
But we could say that Func is special, and that the inferred type of a lambda or anonymous method is Func of something. We'd still have all kinds of problems. What types would you like to be inferred for the following cases?
var x1 = (ref int y)=>123;
There is no Func<T> type that takes a ref anything.
var x2 = y=>123;
We don't know the type of the formal parameter, though we do know the return. (Or do we? Is the return int? long? short? byte?)
var x3 = (int y)=>null;
We don't know the return type, but it can't be void. The return type could be any reference type or any nullable value type.
var x4 = (int y)=>{ throw new Exception(); }
Again, we don't know the return type, and this time it can be void.
var x5 = (int y)=> q += y;
Is that intended to be a void-returning statement lambda or something that returns the value that was assigned to q? Both are legal; which should we choose?
Now, you might say, well, just don't support any of those features. Just support "normal" cases where the types can be worked out. That doesn't help. How does that make my life easier? If the feature works sometimes and fails sometimes then I still have to write the code to detect all of those failure situations and give a meaningful error message for each. We still have to specify all that behaviour, document it, write tests for it, and so on. This is a very expensive feature that saves the user maybe half a dozen keystrokes. We have better ways to add value to the language than spending a lot of time writing test cases for a feature that doesn't work half the time and doesn't provide hardly any benefit in cases where it does work.
The situation where it is actually useful is:
var xAnon = (int y)=>new { Y = y };
because there is no "speakable" type for that thing. But we have this problem all the time, and we just use method type inference to deduce the type:
Func<A, R> WorkItOut<A, R>(Func<A, R> f) { return f; }
...
var xAnon = WorkItOut((int y)=>new { Y = y });
and now method type inference works out what the func type is.
Only Eric Lippert knows for sure, but I think it's because the signature of the delegate type doesn't uniquely determine the type.
Consider your example:
var comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; };
Here are two possible inferences for what the var should be:
Predicate<string> comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; }; // okay
Func<string, bool> comparer = delegate(string value) { return value != "0"; }; // also okay
Which one should the compiler infer? There's no good reason to choose one or the other. And although a Predicate<T> is functionally equivalent to a Func<T, bool>, they are still different types at the level of the .NET type system. The compiler therefore cannot unambiguously resolve the delegate type, and must fail the type inference.
Eric Lippert has an old post about it where he says
And in fact the C# 2.0 specification
calls this out. Method group
expressions and anonymous method
expressions are typeless expressions
in C# 2.0, and lambda expressions join
them in C# 3.0. Therefore it is
illegal for them to appear "naked" on
the right hand side of an implicit
declaration.
Different delegates are considered different types. e.g., Action is different than MethodInvoker, and an instance of Action can't be assigned to a variable of type MethodInvoker.
So, given an anonymous delegate (or lambda) like () => {}, is it an Action or a MethodInvoker? The compiler can't tell.
Similarly, if I declare a delegate type taking a string argument and returning a bool, how would the compiler know you really wanted a Func<string, bool> instead of my delegate type? It can't infer the delegate type.
The following points are from the MSDN regarding Implicitly Typed Local Variables:
var can only be used when a local variable is declared and initialized in the same statement; the variable cannot be initialized to null, or to a method group or an anonymous function.
The var keyword instructs the compiler to infer the type of the variable from the expression on the right side of the initialization statement.
It is important to understand that the var keyword does not mean "variant" and does not indicate that the variable is loosely typed, or late-bound. It just means that the compiler determines and assigns the most appropriate type.
MSDN Reference: Implicitly Typed Local Variables
Considering the following regarding Anonymous Methods:
Anonymous methods enable you to omit the parameter list.
MSDN Reference: Anonymous Methods
I would suspect that since the anonymous method may actually have different method signatures, the compiler is unable to properly infer what the most appropriate type to assign would be.
My post doesn't answer the actual question, but it does answer the underlying question of :
"How do I avoid having to type out some fugly type like Func<string, string, int, CustomInputType, bool, ReturnType>?" [1]
Being the lazy/hacky programmer that I am, I experimented with using Func<dynamic, object> - which takes a single input parameter and returns an object.
For multiple arguments, you can use it like so:
dynamic myParams = new ExpandoObject();
myParams.arg0 = "whatever";
myParams.arg1 = 3;
Func<dynamic, object> y = (dynObj) =>
{
return dynObj.arg0.ToUpper() + (dynObj.arg1 * 45); //screw type casting, amirite?
};
Console.WriteLine(y(myParams));
Tip: You can use Action<dynamic> if you don't need to return an object.
Yeah I know it probably goes against your programming principles, but this makes sense to me and probably some Python coders.
I'm pretty novice at delegates... just wanted to share what I learned.
[1] This assumes that you aren't calling a method that requires a predefined Func as a parameter, in which case, you'll have to type that fugly string :/
Other answers were correct at the time they were written, but starting from C# 10.0 (from 2021), the compiler can infer a suitable delegate type (like some Func<...>, Action<...> or generated delegate type) in such cases.
See C# 10 Features - Lambda improvements.
var comparer = delegate(string value) {
return value != "0";
}; // OK in C# 10.0, picks 'Func<string, bool>' in this case
Of course the more usual syntax is to us =>, so:
var comparer = (string value) => {
return value != "0";
}; // OK in C# 10.0, picks 'Func<string, bool>' in this case
How is about that?
var item = new
{
toolisn = 100,
LangId = "ENG",
toolPath = (Func<int, string, string>) delegate(int toolisn, string LangId)
{
var path = "/Content/Tool_" + toolisn + "_" + LangId + "/story.html";
return File.Exists(Server.MapPath(path)) ? "<a style=\"vertical-align:super\" href=\"" + path + "\" target=\"_blank\">execute example</a> " : "";
}
};
string result = item.toolPath(item.toolisn, item.LangId);