Let's say I have an interface IMyInterface<T>
that simply describes one function:
public interface IMyInterface<T>
{
T MyFunction(T item);
}
I could just about replace this with Func<T, T>
, but I want the interface for semantic reasons. Can I define an implicit conversion between that interface and Func<T,T>
such that I could pass an anonymous delegate or lambda as an argument to a function that accepts this interface as a parameter, just like if I had used Func<T,T>
instead?
To demonstrate, using the interface declared above I want a function like this:
public T TestFunction<T>(IMyInterface myInterface, T value)
{
return myInterface.MyFunction(value);
}
That I can call like this:
TestFunction(x => x + " world", "hello");
And the result would be "hello world".
An implicit conversion sequence is the sequence of conversions required to convert an argument in a function call to the type of the corresponding parameter in a function declaration. The compiler tries to determine an implicit conversion sequence for each argument.
Implicit conversions: No special syntax is required because the conversion always succeeds and no data will be lost. Examples include conversions from smaller to larger integral types, and conversions from derived classes to base classes.
The implicit type conversion is the type of conversion done automatically by the compiler without any human effort. It means an implicit conversion automatically converts one data type into another type based on some predefined rules of the C++ compiler. Hence, it is also known as the automatic type conversion.
In Implicit type conversion, Python automatically converts one data type to another data type. This process doesn't need any user involvement. Let's see an example where Python promotes the conversion of the lower data type (integer) to the higher data type (float) to avoid data loss.
Since interfaces in C# cannot contain definitions for operators (or any static methods for that matter), I believe the answer is no. The alternative is to use a class (can't be abstract unfortunately, since static members/operators fair no better here than in interfaces). This would allow you to define the implicit
conversion operator and therefore be able to use the type precisely how you've specified.
In the class (which you could perhaps make virtual
if required), you would define it something like the following.
public class MyClass<T>
{
public static implicit operator MyClass<T>(Func<T, T> func)
{
return new MyClass<T>() { MyFunction = func };
}
public MyClass()
{
}
public Func<T, T> MyFunction
{
get;
set;
}
}
Your definition of TestFunction
in your question should then work exactly as you coded it.
public T TestFunction<T>(IMyInterface myInterface, T value)
{
return myInterface.MyFunction(value);
}
And likewise the call to TestFunction
:
TestFunction<string>(x => return x + " world", "hello");
This may not be precisely what you're looking for, but it's nonetheless reasonably close, and moreover very likely the best you'll be able to get.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With