Expression.Convert doesn't throw InvalidOperationException for invariant value type parameters?

Question

Expression.Convert generally throws in InvalidOperationException when "No conversion operator is defined between expression.Type and type."

The return type parameter of Func<> is covariant for reference types.

// This works.
Func<SomeType> a = () => new SomeType();
Func<object> b = a;

It isn't covariant for value types.

Variance applies only to reference types; if you specify a value type for a variant type parameter, that type parameter is invariant for the resulting constructed type.

// This doesn't work!
Func<int> five = () => 5;
Func<object> fiveCovariant = five;

However, Expression.Convert believes it is possible.

Func<int> answer = () => 42;
Expression answerExpression = Expression.Constant( answer );
// No InvalidOperationException is thrown at this line.
Expression converted 
    = Expression.Convert( answerExpression, typeof( Func<object> ) );

No InvalidOperationException is thrown when calling Expression.Convert. The expression tree compiles correctly, but when I call the created delegate, I get an expected InvalidCastException.

1. Is this a bug? (I reported it as a bug on Microsoft Connect.)
2. How to properly check whether a type can be converted to another type? Some answers seem to refer to using Convert. I would very much prefer a method which doesn't have to use exception handling as logic.

---

It seems the entire variance logic isn't properly supported. It correctly complains about not being able to convert from Func<SomeType> to Func<SomeOtherType>, but it doesn't complain about converting from Func<object> to Func<string>.

Interestingly, once SomeType and SomeOtherType are in the same class hierarchy (SomeOtherType extends from SomeType), it never throws the exception. If they aren't, it does.

Answer 1

Is this a bug?

Yes. The expression tree library was probably not updated consistently throughout when we added covariance and contravariance. Sorry about that.

I reported it as a bug on Microsoft Connect.

Thanks! Someone will have a look at it then.

How to properly check whether a type can be converted to another type?

The question is vague. Given two type objects, do you want to know:

• Does the .NET runtime think the types are assignment compatible?
• Does the C# compiler think that there is an implicit conversion between the types?
• Does the C# compiler think that there is an explicit conversion between the types?

"int" and "short" for example are not assignment compatible by .NET rules. Int is explicitly convertible but not implicitly convertible to short, and short is both implicitly and explicitly convertible to int, by C# rules.

Answer 2

It's not a bug. Expression.Convert represents a run-time type check, so an InvalidCastException at run time would be the expected behavior.

Edit: that's not entirely correct. It doesn't exactly represent a run-time type check (Here's the documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb292051.aspx). However, the expression tree is created at run-time, so all the type checking must happen then.

Edit: I'm using .NET 4.0 too.

By the way, Convert doesn't complain about converting from Func<object> to Func<string> because that conversion is sometimes legal. It is legal if the Func<object> is a covariant reference to an object whose runtime type is Func<string>. Example:

Func<string> sFunc = () => "S";
Func<object> oFunc = sFunc;
Func<string> anotherSFunc = (Func<string>)oFunc;

Now, Convert decides whether to throw an InvalidOperationException by checking whether one type can be coerced to another. When checking delegates for a potential reference conversion, it looks like the code does check contravariant (argument) parameters and throws an InvalidOperationException if any is a value type. It doesn't seem to do that check for the covariant (return type) parameter. So I am beginning to suspect that this is a bug, though I'm inclined to reserve judgment on that until I have a chance to look at the spec (see Eric Lippert's Maybe there's something wrong with the universe, but probably not), which I don't have time to do right now.