Instantiate an already typed generic.

6 มีนาคม 2555 0:09

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<,,,>();
  }
}

ตอบทั้งหมด

6 มีนาคม 2555 1:00

2
No there is no shortcut. After you type the ... = new Bar <, doesn't the intellisense "suggest" the rest of the line?

--
Mike
- เสนอเป็นคำตอบโดย Prasanna A 6 มีนาคม 2555 6:26
- ทำเครื่องหมายเป็นคำตอบโดย OldPhantom 7 มีนาคม 2555 4:37
6 มีนาคม 2555 1:53

0

Thanks for the answer. I was just hoping that the actual code duplication could have been avoided.
6 มีนาคม 2555 6:05

1
```
public class Bar<T,T>
{

}
```
```
Bar<int, string> bar = new Bar<int, string>();
```
There isn't a shorter way, I second Mike's answer.
- เสนอเป็นคำตอบโดย Prasanna A 6 มีนาคม 2555 6:26
6 มีนาคม 2555 6:33

2
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!
- ทำเครื่องหมายเป็นคำตอบโดย OldPhantom 7 มีนาคม 2555 4:37
6 มีนาคม 2555 8:14

0

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
6 มีนาคม 2555 10:15

0

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!
6 มีนาคม 2555 23:26

0

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