Variance will only be supported in a safe way - in fact, using the abilities that the CLR already has. So the examples I give in the book of trying to use a List<Banana>
as a List<Fruit>
(or whatever it was) still won't work - but a few other scenarios will.
Firstly, it will only be supported for interfaces and delegates.
Secondly, it requires the author of the interface/delegate to decorate the type parameters as in
(for contravariance) or out
(for covariance). The most obvious example is IEnumerable<T>
which only ever lets you take values "out" of it - it doesn't let you add new ones. That will become IEnumerable<out T>
. That doesn't hurt type safety at all, but lets you return an IEnumerable<string>
from a method declared to return IEnumerable<object>
for instance.
Contravariance is harder to give concrete examples for using interfaces, but it's easy with a delegate. Consider Action<T>
- that just represents a method which takes a T
parameter. It would be nice to be able to convert seamlessly use an Action<object>
as an Action<string>
- any method which takes an object
parameter is going to be fine when it's presented with a string
instead. Of course, C# 2 already has covariance and contravariance of delegates to some extent, but via an actual conversion from one delegate type to another (creating a new instance) - see P141-144 for examples. C# 4 will make this more generic, and (I believe) will avoid creating a new instance for the conversion. (It'll be a reference conversion instead.)
Hope this clears it up a bit - please let me know if it doesn't make sense!