Can I in any way create a Value class that would allow me to specify Value<string> or Value<int>, but where the effect is that Value holds T for classes, but holds T? for structs?
No, because you cannot have "or" logic in generic type constraints.
To achieve "or" logic in generic type constraints, you would have to create two separate generic classes, each with their own generic type constraint. Note that these two classes could inherit from a shared generic base class which has no type constraint at all.
If that base type is abstract, then you can be sure that consumers must have passed one of the derived classes' type constraint check (assuming no one added some other derived classes)
It would be more appropriate to change your expectation instead of trying to make it the way you currently want to.
but we must support null values
If instead of null, you use default(T), then the problem is resolved.
- For class types,
default(MyClass) effectively resolves to null
- For structs,
default(MyStruct) returns a struct whose properties all contain their default values
default(MyStruct) is the common way to use the concept of "nullability" without having to use a literal null value.
A usage example:
public class Container<T>
{
private readonly Random _random = new Random();
public T DoSomething(T input)
{
//always returns "nothing"
return default(T);
}
}
public class MyClass
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public struct MyStruct
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public class Test
{
public bool ContainerReturnsNothing<T>(T input)
{
var container = new Container<T>();
var output = container.DoSomething(input);
return output.Equals(default(T));
}
public void TestAClassAndAStruct()
{
ContainerReturnsNothing(new MyClass() {Value = 1}); // true
ContainerReturnsNothing(new MyStruct() {Value = 1}); // true
}
}
In the TestAClassAndAStruct method you can see that this generic call stack works exactly the same regardless of whether you use a class or a struct.
If you change the container to return input; then ContainerReturnsNothing will return false in both cases.
One thing you may need to be aware of is that a "nothing" struct cannot be differentiated from a struct that was created but whose properties all happen to have default values. If a struct whose properties all happen to have default values, is a meaningful (i.e. not-nothing) struct value in your case, then this is an issue.
A simple example here is int, whose default(int) resolves to 0. If 0 is a meaningful value, then it is therefore not nothing, which means that you cannot use 0 to represent nothingness.
But you can work around that issue by adding a property which is forced to contain a non-default value when a constructor is executed:
public struct MyStruct
{
public bool IsConstructed { get; } // default false
public int Value { get; }
public MyStruct(int myValue)
{
this.IsConstructed = true;
this.Value = myValue;
}
}
default(MyStruct) will always have IsConstructed set to false.- Every instantiated struct will always have
IsConstructed set to true.
This avoid the issue since they will never be equal to one another. In other words:
var myStruct = new MyStruct(0);
var isNull = myStruct.Equals(default(MyStruct));
isNull is false because myStruct and default(MyStruct) contain a different value for IsConstructed (true and false, respectively).
If you run this same check using the MyStruct class from the original example, isNull would be true because all the properties match, i.e. myStruct and default(MyStruct) both have a Value property set to 0.
