|
Miolynet
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2009, 08:27:26 PM » |
|
Introduction
The Beta for Visual Studio 2010 is upon us and included is the CTP of C# 4.0. While C# 4.0 does not represent a radical departure from the previous version, there are some key features that should be understood thoroughly in order to take advantage of their true potential.
Background
The white paper for C# 4.0's features does a good job of explaining the changes in the language. I thought, however, that some larger code samples and historical perspective would help people (especially new developers) in understanding why things have changed.
Feature Categories
Microsoft breaks the new features into the following four categories so I will maintain the pattern.
• Named and Optional Parameters
• Dynamic Support
• Variance
• COM Interop
Conventions
Some of the examples assume the following classes are defined:
Collapse
public class Person
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public class Customer : Person
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public void Process() { ... }
}
public class SalesRep : Person
{
public int SalesRepId { get; set; }
public void SellStuff() { ... }
}
Named and Optional Parameters
We'll start off with one of the easier features to explain. In fact, if you have ever used Visual Basic, then you are probably already familiar with it.
Optional Parameters
Support for optional parameters allows you to give a method parameter a default value so that you do not have to specify it every time you call the method. This comes in handy when you have overloaded methods that are chained together.
The Old Way
Collapse
public void Process( string data )
{
Process( data, false );
}
public void Process( string data, bool ignoreWS )
{
Process( data, ignoreWS, null );
}
public void Process( string data, bool ignoreWS, ArrayList moreData )
{
// Actual work done here
}
The reason for overloading Process in this way is to avoid always having to include "false, null" in the third method call. Suppose 99% of the time, there will not be 'moreData' provided. It seems ridiculous to type and pass null so many times.
Collapse
// These 3 calls are equivalent
Process( "foo", false, null );
Process( "foo", false );
Process( "foo" );
The New Way
Collapse
public void Process( string data, bool ignoreWS = false, ArrayList moreData = null )
{
// Actual work done here
}
// Note: data must always be provided because it does not have a default value
Now we have one method instead of three, but the three ways we called Process above are still valid and still equivalent.
Collapse
ArrayList myArrayList = new ArrayList();
Process( "foo" ); // valid
Process( "foo", true ); // valid
Process( "foo", false, myArrayList ); // valid
Process( "foo", myArrayList ); // Invalid! See next section
Awesome, one less thing VB programmers can brag about having to themselves. I haven't mentioned it up to this point, but Microsoft has explicitly declared that VB and C# will be "co-evolving" so the number of disparate features is guaranteed to shrink over time. I would like to think this will render the VB vs. C# question moot, but I'm sure people will still find a way to argue about it. ;-)
Named Parameters
In the last example, we saw that the following call was invalid:
Collapse
Process( "foo", myArrayList ); // Invalid!
But if the boolean ignoreWS is optional, why can't we just omit it? Well, one reason is for readability and maintainability, but primarily because it can become impossible to know what parameter you are specifying. If you had two parameters of the same type, or if one of the parameters was "object" or some other base class or interface, the compiler would not know which parameter you are sending. Imagine a method with ten optional parameters and you give it a single ArrayList. Since an ArrayList is also an object, an IList, and an IEnumerable, it is impossible to determine how to use it. Yes, the compiler could just pick the first valid option for each parameter (or a more complex system could be used), but this would become impossible for people to maintain and would cause countless programming mistakes.
Named parameters provide the solution:
Collapse
ArrayList myArrayList = new ArrayList();
Process( "foo", true ); // valid, moreData omitted
Process( "foo", true, myArrayList ); // valid
Process( "foo", moreData: myArrayList); // valid, ignoreWS omitted
Process( "foo", moreData: myArrayList, ignoreWS: false ); // valid, but silly
As long as a parameter has a default value, it can be omitted, and you can just supply the parameters you want to via their name. Note in the second line above, the 'true' value for ignoreWS did not have to be named since it is the next logical parameter.
Dynamic Support
Ok, I'm sure we all have had to deal with code similar to the following:
Collapse
public object GetCustomer()
{
Customer cust = new Customer();
...
return cust;
}
...
Customer cust = GetCustomer() as Customer;
if( cust != null )
{
cust.FirstName = "foo";
}
Note the GetCustomer method returns object instead of Customer. Code like this is frustrating because you know it returns a Customer; it always has and it always will. Unfortunately the coder chose to return object and you can't change it because it modifies the public contract and could potentially break legacy software.
Another instance in which you will be dealing with an object that you know is another type is reflection.
Collapse
Type myType = typeof( Customer );
ConstructorInfo consInfo = myType.GetContructor(new Type[]{});
object cust = consInfo.Invoke(new object[]{});
((Customer)cust).FirstName = "foo";
Because reflection can act on any type, ConstructorInfo.Invoke() must return object. Like the first example, this forces you to cast the object. While casting is easy, it is a relatively expensive operation and, after casting, you should always do a check to make sure you got what you expected. This just adds extra, tedious, code and opens the door for more programming mistakes.
Enter 'dynamic'
The dynamic keyword is new to C# 4.0 and is used to tell the compiler that a variable's type can change or that it is not known until runtime. Think of it as being able to interact with an Object without having to cast it.
Collapse
dynamic cust = GetCustomer();
cust.FirstName = "foo"; // works as expected
cust.Process(); // works as expected
cust.MissingMethod(); // No method found!
Notice we did not need to cast nor declare cust as type Customer. Because we declared it dynamic, the runtime takes over and then searches and sets the FirstName property for us. Now, of course, when you are using a dynamic variable, you are giving up compiler type checking. This means the call cust.MissingMethod() will compile and not fail until runtime. The result of this operation is a RuntimeBinderException because MissingMethod is not defined on the Customer class.
Switching between Static and Dynamic
It should be apparent that 'switching' an object from being statically typed to dynamic is easy. After all, how hard is it to 'lose' information? Well, it turns out that going from dynamic to static is just as easy.
Collapse
Customer cust = new Customer();
dynamic dynCust = cust; // static to dynamic, easy enough
dynCust.FirstName = "foo";
Customer newCustRef = dynCust; // Works because dynCust is a Customer
Person person = dynCust; // works because Customer inherits from Person
SalesRep rep = dynCust; // throws RuntimeBinderException exception
Note that in the example above, no matter how many different ways we reference it, we only have one Customer object (cust).
Functions
When you return something from a dynamic function call, indexer, etc., the result is always dynamic. Note that you can, of course, cast the result to a known type, but the object still starts out dynamic.
Collapse
dynamic cust = GetCustomer();
string first = cust.FirstName; // conversion occurs
dynamic id = cust.CustomerId; // no conversion
object last = cust.LastName; //conversion occurs
There are, of course, a few missing features when it comes to dynamic types. Among them are:
• Extension methods are not supported
• Anonymous functions cannot be used as parameters
We will have to wait for the final version to see what other features get added or removed.
Variance
Ok, a quick quiz. Is the following legal in .NET?
Collapse
// Example stolen from the whitepaper ;-)
IList<string> strings = new List<string>();
IList<object> objects = strings;
I think most of us, at first, would answer 'yes' because a string is an object. But the question we should be asking ourselves is: Is a -list- of strings a -list- of objects? To take it further: Is a -strongly typed- list of strings a -strongly typed- list of objects? When phrased that way, it's easier to understand why the answer to the question is 'no'.
If the above example was legal, that means the following line would compile:
Collapse
objects.Add(123);
Oops, we just inserted the integer value 123 into a List<string>. Remember, the list contents were never copied; we simply have two references to the same list. There is a case, however, when casting the list this should be allowed. If the list is read-only then we should be allowed to view the contents any (type legal) way we want.
Co and Contra Variance
From Wikipedia:
Within the type system of a programming language, a type conversion operator is:
• covariant if it preserves the ordering, =, of types, which orders types from more specific to more generic;
• contravariant if it reverses this ordering, which orders types from more generic to more specific;
• invariant if neither of these apply.
C# is of course Covariant meaning a Customer is a Person and can always be referenced as one. There are lots of discussions on this topic and I will not cover it here. The changes in C# 4.0 only involve typed (generic) interfaces and situations like in the example above. In order to support co and contra variance, typed interfaces are going to be given 'input' and 'output' sides. So, to make the example above legal, IList must be declared in the following manner:
Collapse
public interface IList<out T> : ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable
{
...
}
Notice the use of the out keyword. This is essentially saying the IList is readonly and it is safe to refer to a List<string> as a List<object>. Now, of course, IList is not going to be defined this way; it must support having items added to it. A better example to consider is IEnumerable which should be, and is, readonly.
Collapse
public interface IEnumerable<out T> : IEnumerable
{
IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator();
}
Using out to basically mean 'read only' is straightforward, but when does using the in keyword to make something 'write only' useful? Well, it actually becomes useful in situations where a generic argument is expected and only used internally by the method. IComparer is the canonical example.
Collapse
public interface IComparer<in T>
{
public int Compare(T left, T right);
}
As you can see, we can't get back an item of type T. Even though the Compare method could potential act on the left and right arguments, it is kept within the method so it is a 'black hole' to clients that use the interface.
To continue the example above, this means that an IComparer<object> can be used in the place of an IComparer<string>. The C# 4.0 whitepaper sums the reason up nicely: 'If a comparer can compare any two objects, it can certainly also compare two strings.' This is counter-intuitive (or maybe contra-intuitive) because if a method expects a string, you can't give it an object.
COM Interop
This is by far the area in which I have the least experience, however I'm sure we have all had to interact with Microsoft Office at one point and make calls like this:
Collapse
// Code simplified for this example
using Microsoft.Office.Interop;
using Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word;
object foo = "MyFile.txt";
object bar = Missing.Value;
object optional = Missing.Value;
Document doc = (Document)Application.GetDocument(ref foo, ref bar, ref optional);
doc.CheckSpelling(ref optional, ref optional, ref optional, ref optional);
There are (at least) three problems with the code above. First you have to declare all your variables as objects and pass them with the ref keyword. Second, you can't omit parameters and must also pass the Missing.Value even if you are not using the parameter. And third, behind the scenes you are using huge (in file size) interop assemblies just to make one method call.
C# 4.0 will allow you to write the code above in a much simpler form that ends up looking almost exactly like 'normal' C# code. This is accomplished by using some of the features already discussed; namely dynamic support and optional parameters.
Collapse
// Again, simplified for example.
using Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word;
var doc = Application.GetDocument("MyFile.txt");
doc.CheckSpelling();
What will also happen behind the scenes is that the interop assembly that is generated will only include the interop code you are actually using in your application. This will cut down on application size tremendously. My apologies in advance for this weak COM example, but I hope it got the point across.
Conclusion
There are some great enchantments coming in C# 4.0. This article was intended to provide an overview of the new features and why they were created. There may be some last minute tweaks to the final product, but the features above are coming and should make a big difference in your future development.
Credit : http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/CSharp4_Features.aspx
|
