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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 6915757
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T09:30:54+00:00 2026-05-27T09:30:54+00:00

Is there a succinct way to implement IEnumerable<‘T> in a type whose base type

  • 0

Is there a succinct way to implement IEnumerable<'T> in a type whose base type implements the non-generic IEnumerable? I’m using the mkEnumerator function below to do it, but it seems excessive.

open System
open System.Collections.Generic
open System.Configuration

let mkEnumerator<'T> (e : System.Collections.IEnumerator) =
  { new IEnumerator<'T> with
      member __.Current = e.Current |> unbox
    interface System.Collections.IEnumerator with
      member __.Current = e.Current
      member __.MoveNext() = e.MoveNext()
      member __.Reset() = e.Reset()
    interface IDisposable with
      member __.Dispose() =
        match e with
        | :? IDisposable as d -> d.Dispose()
        | _ -> () }

type MyConfigElement() = 
  inherit ConfigurationElement()

type MyConfigCollection() =
  inherit ConfigurationElementCollection()
  override __.CreateNewElement() = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
  override __.GetElementKey(_) = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
  interface IEnumerable<MyConfigElement> with
    member __.GetEnumerator() = mkEnumerator<MyConfigElement> (base.GetEnumerator())

Update

Following desco’s suggestion, I’m now using:

type MyConfigCollection() =
  inherit ConfigurationElementCollection()
  ...
  interface IEnumerable<MyConfigElement> with
    member __.GetEnumerator() = (Seq.cast<MyConfigElement> this).GetEnumerator()
  • 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
    2026-05-27T09:30:54+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 9:30 am

    shorter version of Brian’s suggestion:

    let mkEnum<'T> (ie : System.Collections.IEnumerable) = (Seq.cast<'T> ie).GetEnumerator()
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is there a nice succinct way to get random rows using query over? Something
Is there a succinct way to retrieve a random record from a sql server
I was wondering if there is a cleaner (more succinct) way to do what
Is there a more succinct way to write the below code? $myQuery = SELECT
Is there a succinct way to represent a bounded numeric value in .NET 3.5?
Is there a succinct way (i.e. not a for loop) to create a string
Is there are more succinct or Rubyesque way of writing this: if ( variable
Is there a more succinct way to define a class in a namespace than
Is there a good, succinct/built-in way to see if all the values in an
I'm trying to create a more succinct way to make hundreds of db calls.

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.