views:

241

answers:

3

I've come across these in a textbook I am reading on C#, but I am having difficulty understanding them, probably due to lack of context.

Is there a good concise explanation of what they are and what they are useful for out there?

Edit for clarification:

Covariant interface:

interface IBibble<out T>
.
.

Contravariant interface:

interface IBibble<in T>
.
.
+1  A: 

This is a short and good expalnation IMHO: http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2010/02/16/covariance-and-contravariance-faq.aspx

digEmAll
Hmm it is good but it doesn't explain _why_ which is what is really baffling me.
SLC
+1  A: 

May be useful: Blog Post

Krunal
+3  A: 

With <out T>, you can treat the interface reference as one upwards in the hierarchy.

With <in T>, you can treat the interface reference as one downwards in the hiearchy.

Let me try to explain it in more english terms.

Let's say you are retrieving a list of animals from your zoo, and you intend to process them. All animals (in your zoo) has a name, and a unique ID. Some animals are mammals, some are reptiles, some are amphibians, some are fish, etc. but they're all animals.

So, with your list of animals (which contains animals of different types), you can say that all the animals has a name, so obviously it would be safe to get the name of all the animals.

However, what if you have a list of birds only, but need to treat them like animals, does that work? Intuitively, it should work, but in C# 3.0 and before, this piece of code will not compile:

IEnumerable<Animal> animals = GetFishes(); // returns IEnumerable<Fish>

The reason for this is that the compiler doesn't "know" what you intend, or can, do with the animals collection after you've retrieved it. For all it knows, there could be a way through IEnumerable<T> to put an object back into the list, and that would potentially allow you to put an animal that isn't a fish, into a collection that is supposed to contain only fish.

In other words, the compiler cannot guarantee that this is not allowed:

animals.Add(new Mammal("Zebra"));

So the compiler just outright refuses to compile your code. This is covariance.

Let's look at contravariance.

Since our zoo can handle all animals, it can certainly handle fish, so let's try to add some fish to our zoo.

In C# 3.0 and before, this does not compile:

List<Fish> fishes = GetAccessToFishes(); // for some reason, returns List<Animal>
fishes.Add(new Fish("Guppy"));

Here, the compiler could allow this piece of code, even though the method returns List<Animal> simply because all fish are animals, so if we just changed the types to this:

List<Animal> fishes = GetAccessToFishes();
fishes.Add(new Fish("Guppy"));

Then it would work, but the compiler cannot determine that you're not trying to do this:

List<Fish> fishes = GetAccessToFishes(); // for some reason, returns List<Animal>
Fish firstFist = fishes[0];

Since the list is actually a list of animals, this is not allowed.

So contra- and co-variance is how you treat object references and what you're allowed to do with them.

The in and out keywords in C# 4.0 specifically marks the interface as one or the other. With in, you're allowed to place the generic type (usually T) in input-positions, which means method arguments, and write-only properties.

With out, you're allowed to place the generic type in output-positions, which is method return values, read-only properties, and out method parameters.

This will allow you to do what intended to do with the code:

IEnumerable<Animal> animals = GetFishes(); // returns IEnumerable<Fish>
// since we can only get animals *out* of the collection, every fish is an animal
// so this is safe

List<T> has both in- and out-directions on T, so it is neither co-variant nor contra-variant, but an interface that allowed you to add objects, like this:

interface IWriteOnlyList<in T>
{
    void Add(T value);
}

would allow you to do this:

IWriteOnlyList<Fish> fishes = GetWriteAccessToAnimals(); // still returns
                                                            IWriteOnlyList<Animal>
fishes.Add(new Fish("Guppy")); <-- this is now safe

Here's a few videos that shows the concepts:

Here's an example:

namespace SO2719954
{
    class Base { }
    class Descendant : Base { }

    interface IBibbleOut<out T> { }
    interface IBibbleIn<in T> { }

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            // We can do this since every Descendant is also a Base
            // and there is no chance we can put Base objects into
            // the returned object, since T is "out"
            // We can not, however, put Base objects into b, since all
            // Base objects might not be Descendant.
            IBibbleOut<Base> b = GetOutDescendant();

            // We can do this since every Descendant is also a Base
            // and we can now put Descendant objects into Base
            // We can not, however, retrieve Descendant objects out
            // of d, since all Base objects might not be Descendant
            IBibbleIn<Descendant> d = GetInBase();
        }

        static IBibbleOut<Descendant> GetOutDescendant()
        {
            return null;
        }

        static IBibbleIn<Base> GetInBase()
        {
            return null;
        }
    }
}

Without these marks, the following could compile:

public List<Descendant> GetDescendants() ...
List<Base> bases = GetDescendants();
bases.Add(new Base()); <-- uh-oh, we try to add a Base to a Descendant

or this:

public List<Base> GetBases() ...
List<Descendant> descendants = GetBases(); <-- uh-oh, we try to treat all Bases
                                               as Descendants
Lasse V. Karlsen
Hmm, would you be able to explain the goal of covariance and contravariance? It might help me to understand it more.
SLC
See the last bit, which is what the compiler prevented before, the purpose of in and out is to say what you can do with the interfaces (or types) that is safe, so that the compiler won't prevent you from doing safe things.
Lasse V. Karlsen
Superb answer, I watched the videos they were very helpful, and combined with your example I have it sorted now. Only one question remains, and that is why are 'out' and 'in' required, why doesn't visual studio automatically know what you are trying to do (or whats the reason behind it)?
SLC
Automagic "I see what you're trying to do there" is usually frowned upon when it comes to declaring stuff like classes, it is better to have the programmer explicitly mark the types. You can try adding "in" to a class that has methods that return T and the compiler will complain. Imagine what would happen if it silently just removed the "in" it had previously automatically added for you.
Lasse V. Karlsen
I see, thanks very much for your answer I really appreciate it. This topic has been driving me mad for a while :)
SLC

related questions