Half baked ideas

[doodab]

Is this why I see so many oompa loompas walking the streets?

[mudskipper]

[doodab]

OK

I have an interface Wotsit<T> { T doStuff(); }

I want a factory method that returns a Wotsit for different types of T. It needs to support multiple types, lookup a wotsit based on the return type, and support runtime registration of new types and associated wotsits, so the factory method needs to take the return type as a parameter. I can do this as long as T isn't a generic type. Unfortunately I need it to support generic types.

e.g. I can do this
Wotsit<Blah> myWotsit = WotsitFactory.getWotsit(Blah.class);
Blah result = myWotsit.doStuff();

but this doesn't work

Wotsit<List<Blah>> myWotsit = WotsitFactory.getWotsit(List<Blah>.class);
List<Blah> result = myWotsit.doStuff();
for (Blah blah : result) {
....

Yes, I know I can use Object, but I don't want to, that defeats the point of using generics in the first place. I might as well be using ******* void *

Can C# do this?

What I can do is create a non generic class that implements List<Blah> and then use something like

Wotsit<? extends List<Blah>> myWotsit = WotsitFactory.getWotsit(BlahList.class);

What a PITA.

Especially when you have List<BlahList> to deal with. One BlahListListListListList coming up.

[DimPrawn]

Lots of contracts porting Java to C#.

I wonder why?

[mudskipper]

I meant c#'s var...

c# var keyword equivalent in java? - Stack Overflow

Java really doesn't do implicit types. The reason I added it was to show one of the advantages of C# in the fact it can handle implicit types and conversions without pain.

Personally I hate them but then again I don't like Linq that much full stop. I'm very old school give me stored procedures any day.

Edit: Or wot 'e sed.

[eek]

I fear we've missed eek's point, but don't know enough of Java to be sure.

Java really doesn't do implicit types. The reason I added it was to show one of the advantages of C# in the fact it can handle implicit types and conversions without pain.

Personally I hate them but then again I don't like Linq that much full stop. I'm very old school give me stored procedures any day.

[d000hg]

I meant c#'s var...

[mudskipper]

Nah I don't like all the non-typed stuff either. It's a proper language, not bloody JS.

I fear we've missed eek's point, but don't know enough of Java to be sure.

[d000hg]

Nah I don't like all the non-typed stuff either. It's a proper language, not bloody JS.

[mudskipper]

surely that would be

var loads = new List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava>();

Although personally I curse resharper every time it suggests it.

I only use var when it's too bloody complicated to work out what I'm getting back (Linq). Mebbe I should be more liberal.

[eek]

List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava> loads = new List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava>();

surely that would be

var loads = new List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava>();

Although personally I curse resharper every time it suggests it.

[mudskipper]

Indeed. C# on the other hand does it very nicely.

List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava> loads = new List<StuffThatCSharpDoesBetterThanJava>();

[d000hg]

Don't you just love them.

Java generics. Oh dear.

Indeed. C# on the other hand does it very nicely.

[doodab]

Don't you just love them.

Java generics. Oh dear.