C# Generics and Inheritance Problem

Question

Hey, I'd like to know if what I'm trying to do is even possible? Comments in code should give and idea what I'm trying to achive :)

interface ITest<T> {
    T t { get; }
    bool DoTest();
}

public abstract class Test<T> : ITest<T> {
    public Test (T nt) {
        this.t = nt;
    }

    public Test () {
    }

    public T t {
        get;
        private set;
    }

    public abstract bool DoTest ();
}

public class STest : Test<string> {
    public override bool DoTest () {
    return true;
    }
}

public class ITest : Test<int> {
    public override bool DoTest () {
        return true;
    }
}

public class TestTest {
    // I don't want to specify type here, I'd like TestTest to be able to have
    // either a ITest or a STest. But for this class it should not matter.
    // I just want to use DoTest() later on. No matter what 
    // specialication of Test this is.
    Test myTest;
}

This might be a design problem, and I'd be willing to reconsider that if it is :)

Ani · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-12 21:29:52Z

4

I would suggest extracting the DoTest method to a super-interface, like this:

interface ITestable
{
    bool DoTest();
}

interface ITest<T> : ITestable
{
    T t { get; }
}

public class TestTest 
{       
    ITestable myTest;
}

On an unrelated note, it is not recommended for class-names to begin with 'I' and for properties to begin with lower-case characters.

edited Sep 12, 2010 at 21:29

answered Sep 12, 2010 at 21:24

Ani

114k27 gold badges269 silver badges313 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

Timwi Over a year ago

Yeah. It is also not recommended to call something STest/ITest when you could as well call it StringTest/IntTest and it would be a million times more readable.

Ondrej Tucny Over a year ago

I don't think a particular naming convention is the most important aspect here.

Steven Sudit Over a year ago

@Ondrej: Nobody said it was the most important. However, anything that makes the code easier for us to understand can only benefit the OP.

Ondrej Tucny · Accepted Answer · 2010-09-12 21:33:46Z

Place the DoTest() method in a non-generic ITest interface. Also, I would recommend making the ITest interface have a non-generic version of t. This is a quite common approach seen with interfaces like IEnumerable and IEnumerable<T>. The advantage is the non-generic version doesn't get less-capable and can hence can be fully leveraged in places where no actual type parameter can be supplied.

interface ITest
{
    object t { get; }
    bool DoTest();
}

interface ITest<T> : ITest
{
    T t { get; }
}

Thanks to explicit implementation the unwanted non-generic or generic version (depending on the actual situation) can be hidden:

class STest : ITest<S>
{
    public string t { get; private set; }
    string ITest.t { get { return t; } }
    public bool DoTest { ... }
}

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

C# Generics and Inheritance Problem

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related