Reputation: 20296
I have a problem with understanding how generic constraints work. I think I am missing something important here. I have enclosed my questions in the comments and would be grateful for providing some explanation.
//1st example:
class C <T, U>
where T : class
where U : struct, T
{
}
//Above code compiles well,
//On first sight it looks like U might be reference type and value type
//at the same time. The only reason I can think of, is that T may be an
//interface which struct can implement, Am I correct?
//2nd example
class CC<T, U>
where T : class, new ()
where U : struct, T
{
}
//I added also a reguirement for parameterless constructor
//and, much to my surprise, it still compiles what is
//a bit inexplicable for me.
//What 'U' would meet the requirement to be
//value type, reference type and have a contructor at the same time?
Upvotes: 17
Views: 9841
Reputation: 838246
There's nothing wrong with that. Let's look at the definition of the constraints on the type parameters:
T : class
- The type argument T must be a reference type, including any class, interface, delegate, or array type.U : struct
- The type argument U must be a value type.U : T
- The type argument U must be or derive from the class T.So all you need to do is find a value type that derives from a reference type. At first that might sound impossible, but if you think a bit harder you will remember that all structs derive from the class object
, so this works fine for both your examples:
new C<object, int>();
However if you swap struct
and class
then it won't compile:
// Error - Type parameter 'T' has the 'struct' constraint so 'T'
// cannot be used as a constraint for 'U'
class C<T, U>
where T : struct
where U : class, T
{
}
Upvotes: 18