Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Generics in C#, using type of a variable as parameter [duplicate]

People also ask

What are generics and templates?

Generics are generic until the types are substituted for them at runtime. Templates are specialized at compile time so they are not still parameterized types at runtime. The common language runtime specifically supports generics in MSIL.

Why generics are used in C#?

Generics allow you to define the specification of the data type of programming elements in a class or a method, until it is actually used in the program. In other words, generics allow you to write a class or method that can work with any data type.

What is the meaning of generics in programming?

Generic programming is a style of computer programming in which algorithms are written in terms of types to-be-specified-later that are then instantiated when needed for specific types provided as parameters.

What is generic type?

A generic type is a generic class or interface that is parameterized over types. The following Box class will be modified to demonstrate the concept.


The point about generics is to give compile-time type safety - which means that types need to be known at compile-time.

You can call generic methods with types only known at execution time, but you have to use reflection:

// For non-public methods, you'll need to specify binding flags too
MethodInfo method = GetType().GetMethod("DoesEntityExist")
                             .MakeGenericMethod(new Type[] { t });
method.Invoke(this, new object[] { entityGuid, transaction });

Ick.

Can you make your calling method generic instead, and pass in your type parameter as the type argument, pushing the decision one level higher up the stack?

If you could give us more information about what you're doing, that would help. Sometimes you may need to use reflection as above, but if you pick the right point to do it, you can make sure you only need to do it once, and let everything below that point use the type parameter in a normal way.


One way to get around this is to use implicit casting:

bool DoesEntityExist<T>(T entity, Guid guid, ITransaction transaction) where T : IGloballyIdentifiable;

calling it like so:

DoesEntityExist(entity, entityGuid, transaction);

Going a step further, you can turn it into an extension method (it will need to be declared in a static class):

static bool DoesEntityExist<T>(this T entity, Guid guid, ITransaction transaction) where T : IGloballyIdentifiable;

calling as so:

entity.DoesEntityExist(entityGuid, transaction);

I'm not sure whether I understand your question correctly, but you can write your code in this way:

bool DoesEntityExist<T>(T instance, ....)

You can call the method in following fashion:

DoesEntityExist(myTypeInstance, ...)

This way you don't need to explicitly write the type, the framework will overtake the type automatically from the instance.


You can't use it in the way you describe. The point about generic types, is that although you may not know them at "coding time", the compiler needs to be able to resolve them at compile time. Why? Because under the hood, the compiler will go away and create a new type (sometimes called a closed generic type) for each different usage of the "open" generic type.

In other words, after compilation,

DoesEntityExist<int>

is a different type to

DoesEntityExist<string>

This is how the compiler is able to enfore compile-time type safety.

For the scenario you describe, you should pass the type as an argument that can be examined at run time.

The other option, as mentioned in other answers, is that of using reflection to create the closed type from the open type, although this is probably recommended in anything other than extreme niche scenarios I'd say.