In case you happen to have a generic method that returns a generic value but doesn't have generic parameters, you can use default(t) + (t)(object) cast, together with c# 8 pattern matching/type checks (as indicated in the other recent answers). Now i want to accomplish the same with a generic type, while preserving it as a generic type: Generic is the opposite of specific
Generic and specific refer to the identification of a fact Using lookupdictionary = system.collections.generic.dictionary<string, int> Specific means a fact that has been specified
You can certainly define generic delegates, after all, that's exactly what func and action are They are treated as generic definitions, just like generic interfaces and classes are However, you cannot use generic definitions in method signatures, only parameterized generic types Quite simply you cannot do what you are trying to achieve with a delegate alone.
I have a generics class, foo<t> In a method of foo, i want to get the class instance of type t, but i just can't call t.class What is the preferred way to get around it using t.class? Why do we observe this weird behaviour
Doesn't it somehow defeat the entire purpose of generic constraints How do i resolve this, or at least work around it? I am trying to combine a bunch of similar methods into a generic method I have several methods that return the value of a querystring, or null if that querystring does not exist or is not in the
The point about generic types, is that although you may not know them at coding time, the compiler needs to be able to resolve them at compile time Because under the hood, the compiler will go away and create a new type (sometimes called a closed generic type) for each different usage of the open generic type.
