Generic is the opposite of specific. Generic and specific refer to the identification of a fact. Specific means a fact that has been specified. If you ask for (specify) a pain reliever, aspirin would be a specific pain reliever, while aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen together would be generic pain relievers.
The type 'int?' must be a non-nullable value type in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method Is specifying a nullable type as a generic parameter at all possible?
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.
Note about the placing of the function parameter list When using a Generic() to select a function based on the controlling-expression you have the choice of including the function argument list inside of the Generic(), meaning within the opening and closing parenthesis of the Generic(), or outside of the Generic().
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?
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
using LookupDictionary = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, int>; Now I want to accomplish the same with a generic type, while preserving it as a generic type:
Having a code that works for ages when loading and storing images, I discovered that I have one single image that breaks this code: const string i1Path = @"c:\\my\\i1.jpg"; const string i2P...
107 Implementing a generic OrderedDictionary isn't terribly difficult, but it's unnecessarily time consuming and frankly this class is a huge oversight on Microsoft's part. There are multiple ways of implementing this, but I chose to use a KeyedCollection for my internal storage.
I have the following method with generic type: T GetValue<T> (); I would like to limit T to primitive types such as int, string, float but not class type. I know I can define generic for clas...
