Instantiate an already typed generic.

Question

Is there a shorter way of instantiating a generic type in the scenario below?

class Foo
{

  private Bar<int,string,int,string> _bar;

  public Foo()
  {
    _bar = new Bar<int,string,int,string>();
    // is there no shortcut ??
    // e.g. 
    // _bar = new Bar<,,,>();
  }
}

Answer 1

No there is no shortcut.  After you type the ... = new Bar <,  doesn't the intellisense "suggest" the rest of the line? 

--
Mike

Answer 2

Thanks for the answer. I was just hoping that the actual code duplication could have been avoided.

Answer 3

public class Bar<T,T>
{

}

Bar<int, string> bar = new Bar<int, string>();

There isn't a shorter way, I second Mike's answer.

Answer 4

There is much sorter way.. have an alias for Bar<t1,t2,t3,t4> and use it as below.

using Bar = <NameSpaceName>.Bar<int,string,int,string>;  //Must be fully qualified name - <NameSpace>.<class>
class Foo
{
    private Bar _bar;
    public Foo()
    {
        _bar = new Bar();
    }
}

I hope this helps.

---

Please mark this post as answer if it solved your problem. Happy Programming!

Answer 5

Adavesh,

Syntactically yes, the alias is simpler to use and read as mention by you.
I understand to the compiler it doesn't differ much as we need to pass the type for instantiating without which its won't be possible.

Thanks,
PA

Answer 6

Adavesh,

Syntactically yes, the alias is simpler to use and read as mention by you.
I understand to the compiler it doesn't differ much as we need to pass the type for instantiating without which its won't be possible.

Thanks,
PA

I don't get you. Can you exaplain ?

---

Please mark this post as answer if it solved your problem. Happy Programming!

Answer 7

I am guessing that they used <int, string, int, string> as an example, and have many different variables with differing types to instantiate with the generic.  In otherwords, they still need it to be a generic, but your suggestion requires types to be known apriori.

--
Mike