Sometimes I do not get those Ts of C# Generics right. I have a generic struct
public struct ValueWithUnit<T>
{
public ValueWithUnit(T _value, Unit _unit)
{
Unit = _unit;
Value = _value;
}
public Unit Unit { get; }
public T Value { get; }
}
(Unitis an enum, T should be numeric, but there is no constraint available for that purpose).
For WCF I need a non-generic version of that, with T being double. So I thought of:
public struct DoubleValueWithUnit
{
public DoubleValueWithUnit(double _value, Unit _unit)
{
Unit = _unit;
Value = _value;
}
public DoubleValueWithUnit(ValueWithUnit<T> _valueWithUnit)
{
Unit = _valueWithUnit.Unit;
Value = Convert.ToDouble(_valueWithUnit.Value);
}
public Unit Unit { get; set; }
public double Value { get; set; }
}
But the second constructor does not compile:
error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'T' could not be found ... and Convert.ToDouble complains with
Cannot resolve method 'ToDouble(T)' Candidates are...
I know I can add a conversion method to the generic class:
public DoubleValueWithUnit ToDoubleValueWithUnit()
{
return new DoubleValueWithUnit(Convert.ToDouble(Value), Unit);
}
That works. But is there any possibility to add a constructor with a generic parameter to a non-generic class/struct?
I don't think this constructor should exist at all:
public DoubleValueWithUnit(ValueWithUnit<T> _valueWithUnit)
{
Unit = _valueWithUnit.Unit;
Value = Convert.ToDouble(_valueWithUnit.Value);
}
Why do you want to convert a ValueWithUnit<T> to a DoubleValueWithUnit? With some values of T, this does not make sense. How do you convert a BinaryFormatter to double? Or a Form to double? These simply should not be allowed at compile time.
So you either do this:
public DoubleValueWithUnit(ValueWithUnit<double> _valueWithUnit)
{
Unit = _valueWithUnit.Unit;
Value = _valueWithUnit.Value;
}
Or remove the constructor all together.
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