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.
118 I found the example above confusing. I am using React and JSX so I think it complicated the scenario. I got clarification from TypeScript Deep Dive, which states for arrow generics: Workaround: Use extends on the generic parameter to hint the compiler that it's a generic, this came from a simpler example that helped me.
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.
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?
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 think the problem with this is that if you're using this generic method to say, convert a Database object from DbNull to Int and it returns default (T) where T is an int, it'll return 0. If this number is actually meaningful, then you'd be passing around bad data in cases where that field was null. Or a better example would be a DateTime.
This appears to address the question of whether the type is a list-y sort of thing, but the question is more about how to determine what generic type parameter a type that is known to be a List already was initialized with.
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:
