Im wondering if its possible to reuse my overload of the Sort(Comparison) method to sort both labels and textboxes by tabIndex. Ive already tried and i couldnt get it to work. Any help would be appreciated.
foreach(Control control in gbUserInputs.Controls)
{
if (control is Label)
{
inputLabels.Add((Label)control);
}
if (control is TextBox)
{
inputTxtboxes.Add((TextBox)control);
}
}
Sort method call(this doesnt work).
inputLabels.Sort(sortMyInputs<Label>);
Overload of sort method.
private static int sortMyInputs<T>(T entry1, T entry2)
{
return entry1.TabIndex.CompareTo(entry2.TabIndex);
}
You shouldn't be making a generic method:
private static int CompareLabels(Label entry1, Label entry2)
{
return entry1.TabIndex.CompareTo(entry2.TabIndex);
}
The point of a generic delegate is to allow it to hold methods of different concrete types; not to allow it to hold methods that are themselves generic.
If you want to reuse your method, you can modify it to take Control (which both TextBox and Label inherit); you would still be able to pass it to List<Label>.Sort because of delegate covariance.
If you're using .Net < 4, which doesn't have delegate covariance, you can do it your way by adding a constraint to the method so that it knows what T can be:
private static int CompareLabels<T>(T entry1, T entry2) where T : Control
{
return entry1.TabIndex.CompareTo(entry2.TabIndex);
}
You can also simply replace all of your code with one line of LINQ:
inputLabels = gbUserInputs.Controls.OfType<Label>()
.OrderBy(c => c.TabIndex)
.ToList();
Related
I'm trying to wrap my head around abstract by implementing a Set data-type, like so:
abstract Set<T>(Map<T, Bool>) {
public inline function new() {
this = new Map<T, Bool>();
}
public inline function has(item:T):Bool {
return this.exists(item);
}
public inline function add(item:T):Set<T> {
this.set(item, true);
return null;
}
public inline function remove(item:T):Set<T> {
this.remove(item);
return null;
}
public inline function iterator():Iterator<T> {
return this.keys();
}
}
The compiler doesn't like this, though. It tells me Set.hx:8: characters 11-29 : Abstract Map has no #:to function that accepts IMap<util.Set.T, Bool>
I don't really understand this at all, since if I change the constructor to
public inline function new(val:Map<T, Bool>) {
this = val;
}
and then instantiate with var set = new Set(new Map());, it works.
That's pretty gross, though. I'd like the ability to instantiate Sets without exposing the underlying implementation. Ultimately, I'd prefer a constructor with the signature new(?initial:Iterable<T>). Is this possible? Am I misunderstanding something?
The problem is that currently it's impossible to instantiate Map without they key type being known (and since Set.T is a free type parameter, this doesn't work). However since the constructor is inline, T may well be known at the call site. The problem is that the compiler still tries to generate Set.new. You can avoid this by prefixing it with #:extern. Working example: https://try.haxe.org/#1D06C
Basically, I want to override a parent class with different arguments. For example:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
Then override that class, something like:
class HoldMore extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
set(value, value2);
}
override public function set(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
Obviously this will return an error, Field set overloads parent class with different or incomplete type. Is there a way around this? I tried using a public dynamic function, and then setting set in the new() function, but that gave a very similar error. Any thoughts?
This is just a complement to #stroncium's answer, which is totally correct.
Here is an example how it could look like:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
class HoldMore<T> extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
setBoth(value, value2);
}
// you cannot override "set" with a different signature
public function setBoth(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
alternatively, you could use an array as parameter or a dynamic object holding multiple values in order to "set" them using the same method, but you loose some of the compiler's type checking.
If you wrote the base class you could add an optional argument to it, this would be a workaround though, not directly what you want to do.
In the current state it totally won't work. There is not only 1 problem, but few of them:
Type T is meaningless in context of this new class, you should either use some concrete type or template this class over T.
You can not change the number of arguments of function when overriding it. However you can add another function(with a different name) to accept 2 arguments and do what you want (which is the way you would use in most languages, by the way).
I don't really understand how you see a contravariance problem there. The actual problem is that haxe doesn't support function overload. (It actually does, the function signature is name + full type, but that's not what you would want to write nor support, and is mostly used for js/java externs.)
Unfortunately the language doesn't allow it.
Core Question:
I have a generic interface IValidatingAttribute<T>, which creates the contract bool IsValid(T value); The interface is implemented by a variety of Attributes, which all serve the purpose of determining if the current value of said Field or Property they decorate is valid per the interface spec that I'm dealing with. What I want to do is create a single validation method that will scan every field and property of the given model, and if that field or property has any attributes that implement IValidatingAttribute<T>, it should validate the value against each of those attributes. So, using reflection I have the sets of fields and properties, and within those sets I can get the list of attributes. How can I determine which attributes implement IValidatingAttribute and then call IsValid(T value)?
background:
I am working on a library project that will be used to develop a range of later projects against the interface for a common third party system. (BL Server, for those interested)
BL Server has a wide range of fairly arcane command structures that have varying validation requirements per command and parameter, and then it costs per transaction to call these commands, so one of the library requirements is to easily define the valdiation requirements at the model level to catch invalid commands before they are sent. It is also intended to aid in the development of later projects by allowing developers to catch invalid models without needing to set up the BL server connections.
Current Attempt:
Here's where I've gotten so far (IsValid is an extension method):
public interface IValidatingAttribute<T>
{
bool IsValid(T value);
}
public static bool IsValid<TObject>(this TObject sourceObject) where TObject : class, new()
{
var properties = typeof(TObject).GetProperties();
foreach (var prop in properties)
{
var attributeData = prop.GetCustomAttributesData();
foreach (var attribute in attributeData)
{
var attrType = attribute.AttributeType;
var interfaces = attrType.GetInterfaces().Where(inf => inf.IsGenericType).ToList();
if (interfaces.Any(infc => infc.Equals(typeof(IValidatingAttribute<>))))
{
var value = prop.GetValue(sourceObject);
//At this point, I know that the current attribute implements 'IValidatingAttribute<>', but I don't know what T is in that implementation.
//Also, I don't know what data type 'value' is, as it's currently boxed as an object.
//The underlying type to value will match the expected T in IValidatingAttribute.
//What I need is something like the line below:
if (!(attribute as IValidatingAttribute<T>).IsValid(value as T)) //I know this condition doesn't work, but it's what I'm trying to do.
{
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
}
Example usage:
Just to better explain what I am trying to achieve:
public class SomeBLRequestObject
{
/// <summary>
/// Required, only allows exactly 2 alpha characters.
/// </summary>
[MinCharacterCount(2), MaxCharacterCount(2), IsRequired, AllowedCharacterSet(CharSets.Alpha))]
public string StateCode {get; set;}
}
And then, later on in code:
...
var someBLObj = SomeBLRequestObjectFactory.Create();
if(!someBLObj.IsValid())
{
throw new InvalidObjectException("someBLObj is invalid!");
}
Thank you, I'm really looking for a solution to the problem as it stands, but I'm more than willing to listen if somebody has a viable alternative approach.
I'm trying to go generic extension method with this because there are literally hundreds of the BL Server objects, and I'm going with attributes because each of these objects can have upper double digit numbers of properties, and it's going to make things much, much easier if the requirements for each object are backed in and nice and readable for the next developer to have to use this thing.
Edit
Forgot to mention : This Question is the closest I've found, but what I really need are the contents of \\Do Something in TcKs's answer.
Well, after about 6 hours and a goods nights sleep, I realized that I was over-complicating this thing. Solved it with the following (ExtValidationInfo is the class that the below two extensions are in.):
Jon Skeet's answer over here pointed me at a better approach, although it still smells a bit, this one at least works.
public static bool IsValid<TObject>(this TObject sourceObject) where TObject : class, new()
{
var baseValidationMethod = typeof(ExtValidationInfo).GetMethod("ValidateProperty", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public);
var properties = TypeDataHandler<TObject>.Properties;
foreach (var prop in properties)
{
var attributes = prop.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(IValidatingAttribute<>)).ToList();
if (!attributes.Any())
{
continue; // No validators, skip.
}
var propType = prop.PropertyType;
var validationMethod = baseValidationMethod.MakeGenericMethod(propType);
var propIsValid = validationMethod.Invoke(null, prop.GetValue(sourceObject), attributes);
if(!propIsValid)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public static bool ValidateProperty<TPropType>(TPropType value, List<IValidatingAttribute<TPropType>> validators)
{
foreach (var validator in validators)
{
if (!validator.IsValid(value))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Suppose I have a List<IMyInterface>...
I have three classes which implement IMyInterface: MyClass1, MyClass2, and MyClass3
I have a readonly Dictionary:
private static readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> DeclarationTypes = new Dictionary<Type, Type>
{
{ typeof(MyClass1), typeof(FunnyClass1) },
{ typeof(MyClass2), typeof(FunnyClass2) },
{ typeof(MyClass3), typeof(FunnyClass3) },
};
I have another interface, IFunnyInteface<T> where T : IMyInterface
I have a method:
public static IFunnyInterface<T> ConvertToFunnyClass<T>(this T node) where T : IMyInterface
{
if (DeclarationTypes.ContainsKey(node.GetType())) {
IFunnyInterface<T> otherClassInstance = (FunnyInterface<T>) Activator.CreateInstance(DeclarationTypes[node.GetType()], node);
return otherClassInstance;
}
return null;
}
I'm trying to call the constructor of FunnyClasses and insert as parameter my MyClass object. I don't want to know which object it is: I just want to instantiate some FunnyClass with MyClass as a parameter.
What happens when I call ConvertToFunnyClass, T is of type IMyInterface, and when I try to cast it to FunnyInterface<T>, it says I can't convert FunnyClass1, for instance, to FunnyInterface<IMyInterface>
My current workaround (not a beautiful one), is this:
public static dynamic ConvertToFunnyClass<T>(this T node) where T : IMyInterface
{
if (DeclarationTypes.ContainsKey(node.GetType())) {
var otherClassInstance = (FunnyInterface<T>) Activator.CreateInstance(DeclarationTypes[node.GetType()], node);
return otherClassInstance;
}
return null;
}
And I don't like it because the return type is dynamic, so when I access it from somewhere else, I have no idea what type it is, and I lose intellisense, and stuff. I don't know about any performance implications either.
Any clues?
Thanks in Advance!
Resolution
As I'm using C# 4.0, I could stop casting errors using covariance (output positions only), and so I changed my IFunnyInterface to
IFunnyInteface<out T> where T : IMyInterface
Thank you all for the replies.
Essentially, your problem is that you are trying to convert FunnyInterface<T> to FunnyInterface<IMyInterface>. As has been mentioned several times (one example is here, more information here), this is not valid in most circumstances. Only in .NET 4, when the generic type is an interface or delegate, and the type parameter has been explicitly declared as variant with in or out, can you perform this conversion.
Is FunnyInterface actually an interface?
thecoop answer points you exactly to why you can't do it.
A cleaner solution to the problem (besides using dynamic) would be a base non-Generics Interface:
public interface IFunnyInterfaceBase
{
}
public interface IFunnyInteface<T> : IFunnyInterfaceBase
where T : IMyInterface
{
}
And you need to move methods signature you use in that code from IFunnyInteface to IFunnyInterfaceBase.
This way you would be able to write something like this:
MyClass2 c2 = new MyClass2();
IFunnyInterfaceBase funnyInstance = c2.ConvertToFunnyClass();
The Exception you said you got in your code is not due to the extension method signature itself (the method is fine)..it is originated by the type of your lvalue (the type of the variable you use to store its return value)!
Obviously this solution applies only if you can modify IFunnyInterface source code!
I have a function that returns objects of different types based on the parameter passed to this function.
Is it possible to add these different object types to a collection based on some identifier in C# 4.0?
Usually we do something like this
List or List
but i want one collection which can add object of any type.
Instead of just making a List<object> like other posters are recommending, you may want to define an interface eg IListableObject that contains a few methods that your objects need to implement. This will make any code using these objects much easier to write and will guard against unwanted objects getting into the collection down the line.
Yes, it is called object. Eg:
var objlist = new List<object>();
objlist.Add(1);
objlist.Add(true);
objlist.Add("hello");
You could use object[], List<object>, ArrayList, IEnumerable, ... but if those types have a common base type it would be better to stick to a strongly typed collection.
Really your collection should be as specific as you can make it. When you say
objects of different types
Do these objects have anything in common? Do they implement a common interface?
If so you you can specialise the list on that interface List<IMyInterface>
Otherwise List<object> will do what you want.
Update
No, not really.
I'm sorry but I'm going to question your design.
If you have a collection of different objects, how do you decide how to use one of the objects?
You're going to have a large switch statement switching on the type of the object, then you cast to a specific object and use it.
You also have have a similar switch statement in your factory method that creates the object.
One of the benefits of Object Orientation is that if you design your objects correctly then you don't need to do these large "If it's this object do this.Method(), if it's that object do that.OtherMethod()".
Can I ask, why are you putting different objects into the same collection? What's the benefit to you?
If you want a collection which can add objects of any type then List<object> is the most appropriate type.
Collections in earlier versions of C# (not generics) can contain any kind of objects. If they're value type, they will be boxed into object.
When you need to use them, you can just cast it to the original type.
You may use List<Type> to hold the type information, if that's what you want. And Type[], Hashtable, etc. are also fine. You can use typeof operator to get the type or use Object.GetType().
Also check out Dynamic type.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736.aspx
It will basically do the same thing.
My Suggestion:
public class ParamValue
{
object value = null;
public ParamValue(object val)
{
value = val;
}
public string AsString()
{
return value.ToString();
}
public int AsInt()
{
return int.Parse(value.ToString());
}
public int? AsNullableInt()
{
int n;
if (int.TryParse(value.ToString(), out n))
{
return n;
}
return null;
}
public bool AsBool()
{
return bool.Parse(value.ToString());
}
public bool? AsNullableBool()
{
bool b;
if (bool.TryParse(value.ToString(), out b))
{
return b;
}
return null;
}
}
public class Params
{
Dictionary<string, object> paramCol = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public void Add(string paramName, object value)
{
paramCol.Add(paramName, value);
}
public ParamValue this[string paramName]
{
get
{
object v;
if (paramCol.TryGetValue(paramName, out v))
{
return new ParamValue(v);
}
return null;
}
}
}
Use param class as a collectio to your values, you can convert the return to every type you want.
You could use a Tuple of Genric Types
public Tuple<T, T> MySuperMethod()
{
int number = 1;
string text = "Batman";
return new Tuple<int, string>(number, text);
}
The .NET Framework directly supports tuples with one to seven
elements. In addition, you can create tuples of eight or more elements
by nesting tuple objects in the Rest property of a Tuple object.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.tuple(v=vs.100).aspx