views:

1109

answers:

4

Hi

I had the following problem today, and i was wondering if there is a solution for my problem.

My idea was to build anonymous classes and use it as a datasource for a WinForm Bindingsource:

    public void Init()
    {
        var option1 = new
                      {
                          Id = TemplateAction.Update,
                          Option = "Update the Templates",
                          Description = "Bla bla 1."
                      };

        var option2 = new
                      {
                          Id = TemplateAction.Download,
                          Option = "Download the Templates",
                          Description = "Bla bla 2."
                        };

        var list = new[] {option1, option2}.ToList();

        bsOptions.DataSource = list; // my BindingSource

        // cboTemplates is a ComboBox
        cboTemplates.DataSource = bsOptions; 
        cboTemplates.ValueMember = "Id";
        cboTemplates.DisplayMember = "Option";

        lblInfoTemplates.DataBindings.Add("Text", bsOptions, "Description");
    }

That works fine so far.

The problem i had is to get Id out of the "Current" property of the BindingSource, because i can't cast it back to the Anonymous Type:

    private void cmdOK_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {
        var option = (???)bsOptions.Current;
    }

Is guess there is no way to find out the type of "Current" and access the "Id" Property? Maybe someone have a good solution...

I know there are other ways to get the Id (Reflection, reading the value from the ComboBox, not using anonymous tpyes,...) I'm just courious if it's possible to get the Type out of bsOptions.Current...

Thanks in advance

+6  A: 

To quote MSDN:

An anonymous type cannot be cast to any interface or type except for object.

Vilx-
+5  A: 

In C# 3.0, this is not possible. You'll have to wait for C# 4.0, which allows accessing properties at runtime using "dynamic" variables.

Philippe Leybaert
+5  A: 

Note, as per the comment, I'd just like to point out that I too recommend using a real type when you need to pass it around the program like this. Anonymous types should only really be used locally in a single method at a time (in my opinion), but anyway, here's the rest of my answer.


You can do it using a trick, by tricking the compiler into inferring the right type for you:

using System;

namespace ConsoleApplication4
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            var a = new { Id = 1, Name = "Bob" };
            TestMethod(a);

            Console.Out.WriteLine("Press enter to exit...");
            Console.In.ReadLine();
        }

        private static void TestMethod(Object x)
        {
            // This is a dummy value, just to get 'a' to be of the right type
            var a = new { Id = 0, Name = "" };
            a = Cast(a, x);
            Console.Out.WriteLine(a.Id + ": " + a.Name);
        }

        private static T Cast<T>(T typeHolder, Object x)
        {
            // typeHolder above is just for compiler magic
            // to infer the type to cast x to
            return (T)x;
        }
    }
}

The trick is that inside the assembly, the same anonymous type (same properties, same order) resolves to the same type, which makes the trick above work.

private static T CastTo<T>(this Object value, T targetType)
{
    // targetType above is just for compiler magic
    // to infer the type to cast x to
    return (T)x;
}

usage:

var value = x.CastTo(a);

But we're really pushing the limits here. Use a real type, it'll look and feel cleaner as well.

Lasse V. Karlsen
I don't like this though as it can be error prone, far better to just create an actual class to hold the values.
KeeperOfTheSoul
I agree, though it's not really all that error prone, but I agree, a real type is warranted here, I edited the answer to clarify.
Lasse V. Karlsen
According to Mads Torgersen, the C# team refer to this trick as "cast by example". See his comment (the first) on this article: http://tomasp.net/blog/cannot-return-anonymous-type-from-method.aspx
LukeH
I've seen it referred to as "EvilCast" as well :) Just goes to show, although something *is* possible, doesn't mean we should do it.
Lasse V. Karlsen
That's a very clever trick, but as with almost all `clever` code, it's code that shouldn't be used.
Brett Ryan
Totally agree, here I would at the very least use a Tuple or similar predefined type in a framework, but I would probably create a new type for this scenario.
Lasse V. Karlsen
Everyone keeps saying "ooh, that's evil", but why? It is only runtime-checkable, but lots of languages work exclusively that way, like Python. That can be an acceptable design decision. Anyway, if you're casting from an object back into anything, it's only runtime-checkable anyway. So whats the difference if it's one string or two strings that you are casting back into?
Scott Stafford
+1  A: 

you can try this:

private void cmdOK_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    var option = Cast(bsOptions.Current, new { Id = 0, Option = "", Description = "" });
}

see: Can't return anonymous type from method? Really?

najmeddine