Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 961557
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T01:21:51+00:00 2026-05-16T01:21:51+00:00

I’m working on a method that needs to repeat a small operation at different

  • 0

I’m working on a method that needs to repeat a small operation at different spots, but the code to be repeated should be private to the method. The obvious solution is a nested function. Whatever I try however, the C# compiler barfs at me.

Something roughly equal to this Perl snippet:

my $method = sub {
    $helper_func = sub { code to encapsulate };

    # more code

    &$helper( called whenever needed );

    # more code
}

is what I am talking about, and what I’m trying to accomplish in C#.

No other method in the class should be able to access the helper function in this context. The most logical means of writing this construct in C#, as it appears to me would be something like this:

var helper = (/* parameter names */) => { /* code to encapsulate */ };

And actually make the compiler earn its keep.

Since such an assignment is forbidden, as is the equivalent using the older delegate(){} syntax in place of the lambda, and so is declaring a delegate type within a method—what csc actually allows me to write however, is this:

private delegate /* return type */ Helper(/* parameters */);
private /* return type */ method(/* parameters */) {

    Helper helper = (/* parameter names */) => { 
        /* code to encapsulate */
    };

    // more code

    helper( /* called whenever needed */ );

    // more code
}

Which is all fine and dandy for not copy and pasting a chunk of code around and editing the parameters by hand but it leaks a private delegate type to the rest of the class rather than keeping it private to the method. Which defeats the purpose in the first place. Using goto statements and local variables for parameters would provide better encapsulation of “helper” in this context without sacrificing code reuse. If I wanted to simulate function calls by passing parameters through registers, I think would rather use an assembler. I haven’t found an acceptable way of refactoring the code to avoid the problem altogether either.

So, is it even possible to force this Common Object Oriented Language to obey?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T01:21:52+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 1:21 am

    If you are in C# 3.5 or higher you can take advantage of the lambdas and convenience delegate declarations Func<> and Action<>. So for instance

    void DoSomething()
    {
      Func<int,int> addOne = (ii) => ii +1;
      var two = addOne(1);
    }
    

    The reason you can’t do

    var addOne = (ii) => ii +1;
    

    is because of Homoiconicity, the lambda can be interpreted as two different constructs, a delegate and an expression tree. Thus the need to be explicit in declaration.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a French site that I want to parse, but am running into
I'm parsing an RSS feed that has an &#8217; in it. SimpleXML turns this
I'm working with an upstream system that sometimes sends me text destined for HTML/XML
link Im having trouble converting the html entites into html characters, (&# 8217;) i
That's pretty much it. I'm using Nokogiri to scrape a web page what has
I want to count how many characters a certain string has in PHP, but
I used javascript for loading a picture on my website depending on which small
I have a string like this: La Torre Eiffel paragonata all&#8217;Everest What PHP function
I've got a string that has curly quotes in it. I'd like to replace
I have this code to decode numeric html entities to the UTF8 equivalent character.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.