Let's assume the code you're calling this method from is aware of argument types. If so, you can pack them into appropriate Tuple
type from .NET 4, and pass its instance (Tuple is reference type) to such method as object (since there is no common base for all the Tuples).
The main problem here is that it isn't easy to process the arguments inside this method without boxing / unboxing, and likely, even without reflection. Try to think what must be done to extract, let's say, Nth argument without boxing. You'll end up with understanding you must either deal with dictionary lookup(s) there (involving either regular Dictionary<K,V>
or internal dictionaries used by CLR), or with boxing. Obviously, dictionary lookups are much more costly.
I'm writing this because actually we developed a solution for very similar problem: we must be able to operate with our own Tuples without boxing - mainly, to compare and deserialize them (Tuples are used by database engine we develop, so performance of any basic operation is really essential in our case).
But:
- We end up with pretty complex solution. Take a look e.g. at TupleComparer.
- Effect of absence of boxing is actually not as good as we expected: each boxing / unboxing operation is replaced by a single array indexing and few virtual method calls, the cost of both ways is almost identical.
The only benefit of approach we developed is that we don't "flood" Gen0 by garbage, so Gen0 collections happen much more rarely. Since Gen0 collection cost is proportional to the space allocated by "live" objects and to their count, this brings noticeable advantage, if other allocations intermix with (or simply happen during) the execution of algorithm we try to optimize by this way.
Results: after this optimization our synthetic tests were showing from 0% to 200-300% performance increase; on the other hand, simple performance test of the database engine itself have shown much less impressive improvement (about 5-10%). A lot of time were wasted at above layers (there is a pretty complex ORM as well), but... Most likely that's what you'll really see after implementing similar stuff.
In short, I advise you to focus on something else. If it will be fully clear this is a major performance problem in your application, and there are no other good ways of resolving it, well, go ahead... Otherwise you're simply steeling from your customer or your own by doing premature optimization.