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 890905
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T13:48:27+00:00 2026-05-15T13:48:27+00:00

My tiny mind can’t come up with an elegant solution to this problem. Suppose

  • 0

My tiny mind can’t come up with an elegant solution to this problem. Suppose I have class such as this:

    public class Foo<T>
    {
        public RecordType Type { get; set; }
        public T Value { get; set; }
    }

Where RecordType may look something like this:

 public enum RecordType
    {
        EmptyRecord,
        BooleanRecord,
        IntegerRecord,
        StringRecord,
        ByteRecord
    }

The goal is to treat an IEnumerable<Foo<T>> uniformly for an iteration and/or to switch on the RecordType and perform an action while avoiding boxing the intrinsic types if at all possible. In addition, it would be nice to use a factory to create these Foo‘s off of a factory method.

I’ve fumbled with a few quick implementations of commonality in base class or interface and nothing I came up with answered this, seemingly, very simple problem elegantly.

Small edit:
I should’ve mentioned that my primary goal is to use the .Value without forcing a cast on the caller.

  • 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
    2026-05-15T13:48:27+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 1:48 pm

    You could introduce a non-generic interface IFoo:

    public interface IFoo
    {
        RecordType Type { get; set; }
    }
    

    which is implemented by the generic Foo class:

    public class Foo<T> : IFoo
    {
        public T Value { get; set; }
    }
    

    and create a factory method that creates a Foo instance depending on RecordType:

    public static IFoo CreateFoo(RecordType type)
    {
        switch (type)
        {
            case RecordType.Bool: return new Foo<bool>();
            // ...
        }
    }
    

    Once you’ve created a Foo instance this way, you can’t access the value yet, because you don’t know the type parameter yet. But you can check for the type using the Type property and do the appropriate cast:

    IFoo foo = CreateFoo(RecordType.Bool);
    
    if (foo.Type == RecordType.Bool)
    {
        Foo<bool> boolFoo = (Foo<bool>)foo;
        bool value = boolFoo.Value;
    }
    

    If you have a method that works with Foo objects, for example:

    void DoIt<T>(IEnumerable<Foo<T>> foos)
    {
        foreach (Foo<T> foo in foos)
        {
            Qux(foo.Value);
        }
    }
    

    and have an enumerable of IFoo objects, you can Cast/OfType that:

    IEnumerable<IFoo> foos = // ...
    DoIt<bool>(foos.OfType<Foo<bool>>());
    

    So, essentially, you use Foo<T> when you know T at compile-time, and IFoo if you know T only at run-time. IFoo requires a check to turn it into a Foo<T> for some T at run-time.

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

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 451k
  • Answers 451k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Enums do not have a TryParse method, therefore, you could… May 15, 2026 at 8:49 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Answer sorted - IDs are insignificant, it can do without,… May 15, 2026 at 8:49 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Excess register precision is an issue only on FPU registers,… May 15, 2026 at 8:49 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

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.