You could make the parameter an object
:
public void DoSomething(object arg)
{
//...
Or you could do what I prefer and make a generic method:
public void DoSomething<T>(T arg)
{
//...
The generic approach has two major advantages, and I'll give examples of why they're useful:
- Even though you don't explicitly specify the type of
arg
, you still have access to it.
- You can add constraints on the types you want to allow.
Conversely, the object
approach has some important disadvantages:
- Since you're treating
arg
as an object
, you'll only be able to do things you could do with any object.
- If you pass a value type as an
object
parameter, the variable will be boxed, which means a performance hit. It's not a huge hit, but if you call DoSomething
several thousand times in a row, you might start feeling it.
Generics and Type Constraints
Adding a type constraint to a generic method allows you to restrict the method so that it only accepts certain types. Why is that useful? Because even though you don't know—or care—what specific type you're working with, you now know something about it, and you can use that information.
Consider the following setup:
public interface IAnimal
{
void Move();
}
public class Duck : IAnimal
{
public void Move()
{
Console.WriteLine("Flying");
}
}
public class Fish : IAnimal
{
public void Move()
{
Console.WriteLine("Swimming");
}
}
public class Ant : IAnimal
{
public void Move()
{
Console.WriteLine("Walking");
}
}
Since we have an IAnimal
interface, we can write generic methods targeting any implementation of IAnimal
:
public class Program
{
static void DoMove<T>(T animal) where T : IAnimal
{
animal.Move();
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Duck duck = new Duck();
Fish fish = new Fish();
Ant ant = new Ant();
DoMove<Duck>(duck);
DoMove<Fish>(fish);
DoMove<Ant>(ant);
}
}
Run it: http://rextester.com/GOF1761
When we write the DoMove
method, we don't care whether its parameter animal
is a Duck
, a Fish
, an Ant
, or anything else. All we care about is calling animal.Move()
. Since we used the where T : IAnimal
constraint, the compiler knows everything we need it to know:
- The variable
animal
is of type T
.
- Whatever
T
is, it implements IAnimal
.
- Anything that implements
IAnimal
has a Move()
method.
- Therefore, we can safely call
animal.Move()
.
(By the way, yes, we could just write DoMove
as static void DoMove(IAnimal animal)
, but that's another discussion.)
Type Inference (and some of its implications)
Fine, but let's take it a step further. In many cases, you can call generic methods without having to specify their type parameters. This is called type inference, and aside from saving you some typing, it can be useful when doing the same operation on objects of different types.
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
IAnimal[] animals = new IAnimal[]
{
new Duck(),
new Fish(),
new Ant()
};
foreach (IAnimal animal in animals)
{
DoMove(animal);
}
}
Run it: http://rextester.com/OVKIA12317
You only have to write the DoMove<T>
method once, and you can call it on any type of IAnimal
without having to give a more specific type. The appropriate version of Move will be called each time, because DoMove<T>
is able to infer which type to use for T
. When you call DoMove(duck)
, .NET understands that you really mean DoMove<Duck>(duck)
, which then calls the Move
method on the Duck
class.