Cast Action<T> to Action<object> [modified]

[Adriaan Davel]

Thanks for the reply Pete, just not sure I fully understand your explanation. What you are saying that (assuming this was allowed) this wouldn't be a problem:

Action<object> act = null;
act = new Action<int>();

but the problem would come in if I tried:

act("a");

If that's what you are saying then I'm a bit disappointed in MS because type conversion from object has always posed this challenge (I recon this is why generics was brought in) and yes its fair to expect me to pass the right value in or get a runtime error...

____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave

[Adriaan Davel]

Ok, but in non-generic syntax this works:

private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Calc(1);
}

private void Calc(object val)
{

}

but in generic syntax it doesn't?

____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave

[Lost User]

"Shouldn't"; there's a difference between simple types (anything that's a value) and classes, that's why there's a "where T:class" constraint :)

I are Troll :suss:

[Adriaan Davel]

I know that, and object allows me to pass either and respond accordingly inside the method to which I passed the parameter

____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave

[Lost User]

..because you can check what type of object that it is. That's what VS does at compile-time, and since an integer isn't an object it gives an error. It could be wrapped in an object, that's true - but if that's what should be done, then it has to be explicit. Remember that you can't inherit from an integer, so it does make sense to differentiate between the parameter-behaviour and the generics' behaviour :)

I are Troll :suss:

[Pete OHanlon]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The thing is though, generics were brought in for things like type safety and to prevent aid the developer move away from boxing/unboxing. By having object as the generic type, you've just gone back to having a boxing/unboxing issue - and you're no better off than just passing Action across rather than the generic Action.

I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.

Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

[J4amieC]

Why not just to the following, from what I could see would give youthe exact same result, with the benefit of actually compiling!

public interface IBase
{
Func OnComplete { get; set; }
}

public class Base : IBase
{

public Base(Func onComplete)
{
    OnComplete = onComplete;
}

public Func OnComplete { get; set; }

}
public class GenericBase : IBase
{
public GenericBase(Func onComplete)
{
OnComplete = onComplete;
}

public Func OnComplete { get; set; }

}

[BobJanova]

Generic inheritance is a bit complicated. Here's the reason that you can't cast 'down' the generic type parameter inheritance tree. Imagine this test class:

class BadMistake {
void CompleteHandler(Dictionary<string,int> complexParameter){
// some stuff
}

GenericBase<Dictionary<string,int>> instance;

public void CauseDeath(){
instance = new GenericBase<Dictionary<string,int>>(CompleteHandler);
((Base)instance).OnComplete(16);
}
}

Now, CompleteHandler is expecting to be passed a Dictionary, and you can't compile something which would cause that not to be the case. But using the base class, you can pass an int (or anything else) to it. Method parameter compatibility for generics works backwards. This example will compile if the type parameter in the base is a subclass of T, for example try:

public class Base
{
public Func<T> OnComplete {get;set;} where T:Panel
public Base(Func<T> onComplete) where T:Panel
{
OnComplete = onComplete;
}
}
public class GenericBase<T> : Base
{
public GenericBase(Func<T> onComplete) where T:UserControl : base(onComplete)
{
OnComplete = onComplete;
}
}

(if I got the syntax on the constructor there right). Also, there isn't really a reason to make a non generic base type and inherit from it in this way. You can just use a GenericBase<object> if you want one that can deal with anything.

[Adriaan Davel]

I understand that I should avoid boxing & un-boxing (and I do want to, and I do it everywhere), in this case it's not an option. Bit of a complex scenario I'll have to explain (and the code is part of a 5 000 file solution), but I'm quite irritated that this is disallowed, I thought polymorphism / covariance / contravariance is exactly about this...

____________________________________________________________ Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave

[Lost User]

It is, for objects - aka reference-types, not for value-types. C# is really strict on the difference. The posted alternative with the interface does look like it (could) solve your problem. Alternatively, you could decide only to pass objects, and to wrap your ints in a MyInt class.

I are Troll :suss:

[Rob Philpott]

Because it just can't. If asked questions such as this I like to mutter something about Covariance and Contravariance and wonder off. Usually works in the office environment anyway.

Regards, Rob Philpott.

[RobCroll]

It's a design issue and it makes sense when you think about it. If you want to use a collection of type object, then use ArrayList. The generic List is a strongly typed version of ArrayList, so if strong typing is not required, use ArrayList.

"You get that on the big jobs."

[PIEBALDconsult]

In .net, everything is an object. :-D

[PIEBALDconsult]

Rob Philpott wrote:

Covariance and Contravariance

I thought those were added in .net 4.

[Lost User]

That's one of those generalizations that I loathe. Yes, structs are objects too. ..but that doesn't make 'em interchangeable :)

I are Troll :suss:

[Rob Philpott]

You see, I'd have wondered off by the point anyone questions it... This is what I'm thinking of: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/19/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-three-member-group-conversion-variance.aspx[^]

Regards, Rob Philpott.

[J4amieC]

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

but that doesn't make 'em interchangeable

Yes it does, assuming the container being used to intercahnge them types the variable as object.

[Lost User]

J4amieC wrote:

Yes it does, assuming the container being used to intercahnge them types the variable as object.

The keyword here is "assuming", and your assumption is a leaky abstraction :) Reference-types are objects, value-types can be boxed in an reference-type. And no, a namespace isn't an object, it's not even a type. Once you state that everything is an object, people will assume that anything can be used as a base to derive from (since OO is partly about inheriting from existing objects).

I are Troll :suss:

[J4amieC]

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Once you state that everything is an object, people will assume that anything can be used as a base to derive from

Any non-sealed Type can be used as a base to derive from. What's your point?

[Lost User]

J4amieC wrote:

Any non-sealed Type can be used as a base to derive from.

You can circumvent the impossibility of inheriting a structure by pointing out that it's a sealed class - but that doesn't change the validity of my statement. I took the example of a namespace to prevent the hairsplitting discussion that structs are merely mutilated classes under the hood :)

J4amieC wrote:

What's your point?

That the text "everything is an object" is incorrect. I stated that literally, didn't I? :laugh:

I are Troll :suss: