The title might be a bit vague, but what I want is to achieve this, but then without using the extra lambda in the create method:
public class Wrapper
{
public static Wrapper Create<T>(Func<T, bool> someFunc) where T : Stream
{
return new Wrapper(a => someFunc(a as T)); // Works, but lambda
return new Wrapper((Func<Stream, bool>)(object)someFunc); // Runtime error
return new Wrapper((Func<Stream, bool>)someFunc); // Compile error
}
Func<Stream, bool> _someFunc;
private Wrapper(Func<Stream, bool> someFunc)
{
_someFun开发者_开发知识库c = someFunc;
}
}
Is it possible to do this, if so, how?
EDIT: The stream class is just as example.
In my code I won't be using a stream class, and as for why the type-parameter, because it's returned from a generic method, which is an extension method.
Also, the call will always be type-safe, I wanted to make the 'Wrapper' class itself generic, but then it'd be unable to add it to generic collections, because they'd have different type-parameters.
There's no way to do what you want without a lambda. A Func<Stream, bool>
must accept any type of Stream
as a parameter, so a method that takes a T
(which is a specific kind of Stream
) is not compatible with the signature of Func<Stream, bool>
Anyway, in the code you posted the generic parameter is completely useless; so just remove it, and make the method non-generic.
This can't be casted (even with contravariance support) because it is not a safe cast.
If I have a function that acts on FileStream, then try to pass it into Wrapper, I've passed it in as a function that claims it can act on any Stream. If I then invoke that function from within Wrapper using a MemoryStream, for instance, then the delegate binding fails. The Func<Stream, bool>
is not really a Func<Stream, bool>
at all.
if you want to make Wrapper generic (Wrapper<T>
), you might consider exposing a non-generic interface IWrapper
implemented by the generic. This way you can create a collection of IWrapper
instances and expose the functionality that is valid to perform on any Wrapper<T>
, while still maintaining type-safety inside each instance.
精彩评论