Develop Reference

Generic methods: returning double or double-like class

I'm currently implementing a simple version of algorithmic differentiation with operator overloading in C#. I'm trying to figure out how to design generic math functions that works for with ordinary doubles and my own class "ADouble" that works like a double, but overloads arithmetic operators like +,*,- and so forth.
For instance, i would like to create a function like
Public T MathFunction<T>(T x) where T : "is either double or Adouble"
{
if (x > 0)
return new T(1.0)
else
// something
}
that works for both doubles and ADoubles. In this case it's necessary for me to "new up" a specific value (here 1.0). In other cases i might have to do something like
Public T MathFunction<T>(T x) where T : "is either double or Adouble"
{
T temporaryVar = 2*x;
// .. More calculations
return "some T";
}
I have implemented the necessary interfaces to do a comparison like the above, but i cannot get the rest to work.
I can instantiate my ADouble class with a double by, say
Adouble myADouble = new ADouble(12.3);
but doubles does not have a constructor that works that way, obviously. I've tried different things. First of all i thought of something like
if (typeof(T) == typeof(ADouble)
return new ADouble(1.0)
but this does not work, since the function cannot cast ADouble to a T explicitly (which i understand).
Does anyone have a suggestion on how i could go about implementing generic calculation functions that works with my ADouble class and doubles? Or is the only option to make multiple methods with different signatures? Different suggestions for designs is also greatly appreciated.

Or is the only option to make multiple methods with different signatures?
Called "method overloading".
Yes. This is the correct way to express your "type A or type B" constraint, especially since even if you could successfully express that as a generic constraint, you are still left with the challenge of calling the appropriate constructor.
There is no mechanism in C# generics by which the statement return new T(1.0); could be made to compile successfully. Doing so would require some syntax that additionally constrains the types to those with a constructor that has a single parameter of type double, and there is no such feature in C#.
this does not work, since the function cannot cast ADouble to a T explicitly
Actually, it's that it can't cast implicitly. But, close enough. :)
That would be the next hurdle you'd have to clear. Ironically, this is the simplest. The issue there is that, as you wrote the expression, the compiler knows enough about what's going on to know it can't guarantee the cast will succeed. But if you cast the value to object first, you can then cast it to T without the compiler complaining.
Not that I'm suggesting doing that, mind you. The real issue here is that you are trying to use generic syntax for something that really isn't generic. Generic code is for where you can use any type, or at least a broadly constrained type. If you have specific types in mind, and especially if the implementation is different for each specific type, then you should not be using generics.
In that situation, method overloading is much more appropriate.
Aside: assuming your ADouble type is literally equivalent to double, and you can implement a conversion without any loss of data, you should consider writing an implicit conversion, to help make the types interchangeable. That would look something like this:
public static implicit operator ADouble(double value)
{
return new ADouble(value);
}
Then you can initialize ADouble values with simple assignments, like:
ADouble adouble = 1.0;

Is there a reason to do a type comparison this way?

I'm used to seeing old code like
if (true)
{
...
}
where it's intuitively clear that someone was being either lazy or overly cautious when making a change. I ran across this snippet today, and I'm curious whether there's a functional difference between doing type comparison this way:
private static bool logField(Type t, string fieldname)
{
if (t.ToString() == typeof (Property).ToString())
{
...
}
return true;
}
and doing it this way:
private static bool logField(Type t, string fieldname)
{
if (t == typeof (Property))
{
...
}
return true;
}

I'd say that's generally laziness - but it may not be. For example, you could have two Property types, in the same effective file, but different copies. If typeof(Property) loads it from one file but t is loaded from a different one, your replacement would say they were different but the original code would compare say they were the same.
It's definitely an edge case, and one that you normally want to avoid in the first place... but it's just possible.

I can't think of any good reasons.
In fact, the former will throw if t is null.

The first one compares references of Strings, while the second one actually checks to see if t is of the Property type.
The first one will always be "correct" because the two strings refer to the same object, but the second one is the correct way to check if t is of the Property type.
An equivalent and more readable way to do a type check is
if (t is Property)

No, getting the type object of 2 instances of the same type will always return a reference to the same type object in memory. This means that performing a reference equality check (==) is sufficient.
Essentially, calling:
if (t.ToString() == typeof (Property).ToString())
will call ToString() twice on the same object, where t is the 'Property' type.

I'd say that the first approach was probably done by someone unfamiliar with C#, not necessary being lazy. The string comparison will work for a majority of the time, except:
If t is null it would throw a null reference exception.
It doesn't take namespaces into consideration.
I would recommend the second case, unless you fall into needing the #2 edge case.

Are there any good reasons why ternaries in C# are limited?

Fails:
object o = ((1==2) ? 1 : "test");
Succeeds:
object o;
if (1 == 2)
{
o = 1;
}
else
{
o = "test";
}
The error in the first statement is:
Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'int' and 'string'.
Why does there need to be though, I'm assigning those values to a variable of type object.
Edit: The example above is trivial, yes, but there are examples where this would be quite helpful:
int? subscriptionID; // comes in as a parameter
EntityParameter p1 = new EntityParameter("SubscriptionID", DbType.Int32)
{
Value = ((subscriptionID == null) ? DBNull.Value : subscriptionID),
}

use:
object o = ((1==2) ? (object)1 : "test");
The issue is that the return type of the conditional operator cannot be un-ambiguously determined. That is to say, between int and string, there is no best choice. The compiler will always use the type of the true expression, and implicitly cast the false expression if necessary.
Edit:
In you second example:
int? subscriptionID; // comes in as a parameter
EntityParameter p1 = new EntityParameter("SubscriptionID", DbType.Int32)
{
Value = subscriptionID.HasValue ? (object)subscriptionID : DBNull.Value,
}
PS:
That is not called the 'ternary operator.' It is a ternary operator, but it is called the 'conditional operator.'

Though the other answers are correct, in the sense that they make true and relevant statements, there are some subtle points of language design here that haven't been expressed yet. Many different factors contribute to the current design of the conditional operator.
First, it is desirable for as many expressions as possible to have an unambiguous type that can be determined solely from the contents of the expression. This is desirable for several reasons. For example: it makes building an IntelliSense engine much easier. You type x.M(some-expression. and IntelliSense needs to be able to analyze some-expression, determine its type, and produce a dropdown BEFORE IntelliSense knows what method x.M refers to. IntelliSense cannot know what x.M refers to for sure if M is overloaded until it sees all the arguments, but you haven't typed in even the first argument yet.
Second, we prefer type information to flow "from inside to outside", because of precisely the scenario I just mentioned: overload resolution. Consider the following:
void M(object x) {}
void M(int x) {}
void M(string x) {}
...
M(b ? 1 : "hello");
What should this do? Should it call the object overload? Should it sometimes call the string overload and sometimes call the int overload? What if you had another overload, say M(IComparable x) -- when do you pick it?
Things get very complicated when type information "flows both ways". Saying "I'm assigning this thing to a variable of type object, therefore the compiler should know that it's OK to choose object as the type" doesn't wash; it's often the case that we don't know the type of the variable you're assigning to because that's what we're in the process of attempting to figure out. Overload resolution is exactly the process of working out the types of the parameters, which are the variables to which you are assigning the arguments, from the types of the arguments. If the types of the arguments depend on the types to which they're being assigned, then we have a circularity in our reasoning.
Type information does "flow both ways" for lambda expressions; implementing that efficiently took me the better part of a year. I've written a long series of articles describing some of the difficulties in designing and implementing a compiler that can do analysis where type information flows into complex expressions based on the context in which the expression is possibly being used; part one is here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2007/01/10/lambda-expressions-vs-anonymous-methods-part-one.aspx
You might say "well, OK, I see why the fact that I'm assigning to object cannot be safely used by the compiler, and I see why it's necessary for the expression to have an unambiguous type, but why isn't the type of the expression object, since both int and string are convertible to object?" This brings me to my third point:
Third, one of the subtle but consistently-applied design principles of C# is "don't produce types by magic". When given a list of expressions from which we must determine a type, the type we determine is always in the list somewhere. We never magic up a new type and choose it for you; the type you get is always one that you gave us to choose from. If you say to find the best type in a set of types, we find the best type IN that set of types. In the set {int, string}, there is no best common type, the way there is in, say, "Animal, Turtle, Mammal, Wallaby". This design decision applies to the conditional operator, to type inference unification scenarios, to inference of implicitly typed array types, and so on.
The reason for this design decision is that it makes it easier for ordinary humans to work out what the compiler is going to do in any given situation where a best type must be determined; if you know that a type that is right there, staring you in the face, is going to be chosen then it is a lot easier to work out what is going to happen.
It also avoids us having to work out a lot of complex rules about what's the best common type of a set of types when there are conflicts. Suppose you have types {Foo, Bar}, where both classes implement IBlah, and both classes inherit from Baz. Which is the best common type, IBlah, that both implement, or Baz, that both extend? We don't want to have to answer this question; we want to avoid it entirely.
Finally, I note that the C# compiler actually gets the determination of the types subtly wrong in some obscure cases. My first article about that is here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2006/05/24/type-inference-woes-part-one.aspx
It's arguable that in fact the compiler does it right and the spec is wrong; the implementation design is in my opinion better than the spec'd design.
Anyway, that's just a few reasons for the design of this particular aspect of the ternary operator. There are other subtleties here, for instance, how the CLR verifier determines whether a given set of branching paths are guaranteed to leave the correct type on the stack in all possible paths. Discussing that in detail would take me rather far afield.

Why is feature X this way is often a very hard question to answer. It's much easier to answer the actual behavior.
My educated guess as to why. The conditional operator is allowed to succinctly and tersely use a boolean expression to pick between 2 related values. They must be related because they are being used in a single location. If the user instead picks 2 unrelated values perhaps the had a subtle typo / bug in there code and the compiler is better off alerting them to this rather than implicitly casting to object. Which may be something they did not expect.

"int" is a primitive type, not an object while "string" is considered more of a "primitive object". When you do something like "object o = 1", you're actually boxing the "int" to an "Int32". Here's a link to an article about boxing:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301569.aspx
Generally, boxing should be avoided due to performance loses that are hard to trace.
When you use a ternary expression, the compiler does not look at the assignment variable at all to determine what the final type is. To break down your original statement into what the compiler is doing:
Statement:
object o = ((1==2) ? 1 : "test");
Compiler:
What are the types of "1" and "test" in '((1==2) ? 1 : "test")'? Do they match?
Does the final type from #1 match the assignment operator type for 'object o'?
Since the compiler doesn't evaluate #2 until #1 is done, it fails.

A List of varying types?

Id' like to create a list of data that will be passed from method to method, however I can't use a struct because the data that will be contained in this list will vary depending on the input.
For example
if (x == 1) {
a = 1
b = true
c = 42
d = "hello"
}
if (x == 2) {
a = 2
b = 'g'
c = "sup"
}
I believe my options are thus:
Create an array or List of strings, and cast the data back to what it originally was from strings. This is messy and could lead to bugs of uninterpretable input, though wouldn't be so bad since it'd all be detected at runtime.
Create a struct for each possibility - Is this even good practice?
Somehow use generics. From what I know, while generics are type-safe yet not type-strict, they must be cast to types before being used. Eg if I wanted a List of items here, I'd need to cast them to strings much like would happen with solution 1, making this useless.
My question then, is which of these options is the best? Or is there an alternate option using some sort of generic type I don't know about? The number of possible variables in each case may change, as with their types. I'd like to be able to return a single List or Array to the calling method, so that it may appropriately deal with the result. It will know how to deal with each group of data based on the value of a, as it will be the 'action choice' identifier. I'm also aware that casting them to objects and back each time is very intensive so I'd rather avoid that.
This is probably pretty simple but it has me stumped...

Since you don't know before hand what the list will contain, it looks like a good case for using an ArrayList.
If you want to get back to the values using a key, consider using a Hashtable.

The general principal in .NET is that every type can be cast to System.Object (although it may involve boxing). You can use a method like
void Foo(params object[] parameters) { ... }
Or use the System.Collections.ArrayList class.
The 'problem' is that when you want to use such a value, you will need code like:
if (parameters[i] is string)
{
string s = (string) parameters[i];
...
}

Sorry, this is not a code related answer: there may be a faulty design hidden behind such a construct. Make sure you know what you are doing, otherwise things might fire back.
If not knowing the type of the fields you use beforehand really is required, this calls for an approach that saves the data with their type, like
struct foo {
private object _value;
private string _type;
foo(string myType, object myValue) {
_value = myValue;
_type = myType;
}
}
and then using Generics to handle the business logic.

Basically you need a list typed to Object, and then yes, you're in a mode of casting back.
My question is, structurally, how will you know what indexes are of which type? This sounds like a painful solution at best.
If you really need to store differing types in the list, perhaps try a struct which contains a member of each type, as well as a flag indicating which data type is represented. Then use a generic collection for that struct. Something like (off the top of my head)
struct FooType
{
public string StringValue;
public bool BoolValue;
public int IntValue;
public char CharValue;
public string DataType;
// You'd probably want constructors too
}
Then the generic list:
var values = new List<FooType>();
Now you can add and remove entries in the list using that type, which would then indicate what the core data really is.
I still don't like the answer; it sounds like your design may be trying to do too much and there may be refactoring opportunities, but since I don't see much more of your code or intent, all I can do is answer what you've asked. :)

You could represent the data items using a Dictionary/Hashtable and then add these dictionaries to a List.
You could also add extra type information into the dictionary value if needed.

Working with an unknown number of unknown types - .NET

hey guys, I've removed some of the complexities of my needs to the core of what I need to know.
I want to send a collection of Values to a method, and inside that method I want to test the Value against, say, a property of an Entity. The property will always be of the same Type as the Value.
I also want to test if the value is null, or the default value, obviously depending on whether the value type is a reference type, or a value type.
Now, if all the values sent to the method are of the same type, then I could do this using generics, quite easily, like this:
public static void testGenerics<TValueType>(List<TValueType> Values) {
//test null/default
foreach (TValueType v in Values) {
if (EqualityComparer<TValueType>.Default.Equals(v, default(TValueType))) {
//value is null or default for its type
} else {
//comapre against another value of the same Type
if (EqualityComparer<TValueType>.Default.Equals(v, SomeOtherValueOfTValueType)) {
//value equals
} else {
//value doesn't equal
}
}
}
}
My questions is, how would I carry out the same function, if my Collection contained values of different Types.
My main concerns are successfully identifying null or default values, and successfully identifying if each value passed in, equals some other value of the same type.
Can I achieve this by simply passing the type object? I also can't really use the EqualityComparers as I can't use generics, because I'm passing in an unknown number of different Types.
is there a solution?
thanks
UPDATE
ok, searching around, could I use the following code to test for null/default successfully in my scenario (taken from this SO answer):
object defaultValue = type.IsValueType ? Activator.CreateInstance(type) : null;
I reckon this might work.
Now, how can I successfully compare two values of the same Type, without knowing their types successfully and reliably?

There is Object.Equals(object left, object right) static method, it internally relies on Equals(object) implementation available at one of provided arguments. Why do you avoid using it?
The rules of implementing equality members are nearly the following:
Required: Override Equals(object) and GetHashCode() methods
Optional: Implement IEquatable<T> for your type (this is what EqualityComparer.Default relies on)
Optional: Implement == and != operators
So as you see, if you'll rely on object.Equals(object left, object right), this will be the best solution relying on strongly required part of equality implementation pattern.
Moreover, it will be the fastest option, since it relies just on virtual methods. Otherwise you'll anyway involve some reflection.
public static void TestGenerics(IList values) {
foreach (object v in values) {
if (ReferenceEquals(null,v)) {
// v is null reference
}
else {
var type = v.GetType();
if (type.IsValueType && Equals(v, Activator.CreateInstance(type))) {
// v is default value of its value type
}
else {
// v is non-null value of some reference type
}
}
}
}

The short answer is "yes", but the longer answer is that it's possible but will take a non-trivial amount of effort on your part and some assumptions in order to make it work. Your issue really comes when you have values that would be considered "equal" when compared in strongly-typed code, but do not have reference equality. Your biggest offenders will be value types, as a boxed int with a value of 1 won't have referential equality to another boxed int of the same value.
Given that, you have to go down the road of using things like the IComparable interface. If your types will always specifically match, then this is likely sufficient. If either of your values implements IComparable then you can cast to that interface and compare to the other instance to determine equality (==0). If neither implements it then you'll likely have to rely on referential equality. For reference types this will work unless there is custom comparison logic (an overloaded == operator on the type, for example).
Just bear in mind that the types would have to match EXACTLY. In other words, an int and an short won't necessarily compare like this, nor would an int and a double.
You could also go down the path of using reflection to dynamically invoke the Default property on the generic type determined at runtime by the supplied Type variable, but I wouldn't want to do that if I didn't have to for performance and compile-time safety (or lack thereof) reasons.

Is the list of types you need to test a pre-determined list? If so, you can use the Visitor Pattern (and maybe even if not since we have Generics). Create a method on your Entities (can be done using partial classes) that takes in an interface. Your class then calls a method on that interface passing itself. The interface method can be generic, or you can create an overload for each type you want to test.
Battery about to die otherwise would give example.
Fifteen seconds after hitting "Save" the machine went into hibernate.
After thinking about it, the Visitor pattern might not solve your specific problem. I thought you were trying to compare entities, but it appears you are testing values (so potentially ints and strings).
But for the sake of completion, and because the visitor pattern is kind of cool once you realize what it does, here's an explanation.
The Visitor pattern allows you to handle multiple types without needing to figure out how to cast to the specific type (you decouple the type from the item using that type). It works by having two interfaces - the visitor and the acceptor:
interface IAcceptor
{
void Accept(IVisitor visitor);
}
interface IVisitor
{
void Visit(Type1 type1);
void Visit(Type2 type2);
.. etc ..
}
You can optionally use a generic method there:
interface IVisitor
{
void Visit<T>(T instance);
}
The basic implementation of the accept method is:
void Accept(IVisitor visitor)
{
visitor.Visit(this);
}
Because the type implementing Accept() knows what type it is, the correct overload (or generic type) is used. You could achieve the same thing with reflection and a lookup table (or select statement), but this is much cleaner. Also, you don't have to duplicate the lookup among different implementations -- various classes can implement IVisitor to create type-specific functionality.
The Visitor pattern is one way of doing "Double Dispatch". The answer to this question is another way and you might be able to morph it into something that works for your specific case.
Basically, a long-winded non-answer to your problem, sorry. :) The problem intrigues me, though -- like how do you know what property on the entity you should test against?