I have several methods that return the value of a querystring, or null if that querystring does not exist or is not in the Generic is the opposite of specific Generic and specific refer to the identification of a fact Specific means a fact that has been specified If you ask for (specify) a pain reliever, aspirin would be a specific pain reliever, while aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen together would be generic pain relievers. The generic parameter type will be the same for all methods, so i would like it at the class level
I know i could make a generic version and then inherit from it for the int version, but i was just hoping to get it all in one.but i didn't know of any way to do that. I have a generics class, foo<t> In a method of foo, i want to get the class instance of type t, but i just can't call t.class What is the preferred way to get around it using t.class? You can certainly define generic delegates, after all, that's exactly what func and action are They are treated as generic definitions, just like generic interfaces and classes are
Quite simply you cannot do what you are trying to achieve with a delegate alone. Why do we observe this weird behaviour What keeps us from comparing the values of generic types which are known to be icomparable Doesn't it somehow defeat the entire purpose of generic constraints How do i resolve this, or at least work around it? Is there a clean method of mocking a class with generic parameters
Say i have to mock a class foo<t> Which i need to pass into a method that expects a foo<bar> I can do the following An abstract parent class with generic type parameters can find the concrete types corresponding to its type parameters for a concrete implementation of itself that directly inherits from it.
WATCH
