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 704907
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T03:59:39+00:00 2026-05-14T03:59:39+00:00

What is the real reason for that limitation? Is it just work that had

  • 0

What is the real reason for that limitation? Is it just work that had to be done? Is it conceptually hard? Is it impossible?

Sure, one couldn’t use the type parameters in fields, because they are allways read-write. But that can’t be the answer, can it?

The reason for this question is that I’m writing an article on variance support in C# 4, and I feel that I should explain why it is restricted to delegates and interfaces. Just to inverse the onus of proof.

Update:
Eric asked about an example.

What about this (don’t know if that makes sense, yet :-))

public class Lookup<out T> where T : Animal {
  public T Find(string name) {
    Animal a = _cache.FindAnimalByName(name);
    return a as T;
  }
}

var findReptiles = new Lookup<Reptile>();
Lookup<Animal> findAnimals = findReptiles;

The reason for having that in one class could be the cache that is held in the class itself. And please don’t name your different type pets the same!

BTW, this brings me to optional type parameters in C# 5.0 🙂

Update 2: I’m not claiming the CLR and C# should allow this. Just trying to understand what led to that it doesnt.

  • 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
    2026-05-14T03:59:39+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 3:59 am

    First off, as Tomas says, it is not supported in the CLR.

    Second, how would that work? Suppose you have

    class C<out T>
    { ... how are you planning on using T in here? ... }
    

    T can only be used in output positions. As you note, the class cannot have any field of type T because the field could be written to. The class cannot have any methods that take a T, because those are logically writes. Suppose you had this feature — how would you take advantage of it?

    This would be useful for immutable classes if we could, say, make it legal to have a readonly field of type T; that way we’d massively cut down on the likelihood that it be improperly written to. But it’s quite difficult to come up with other scenarios that permit variance in a typesafe manner.

    If you have such a scenario, I’d love to see it. That would be points towards someday getting this implemented in the CLR.

    UPDATE: See

    Why isn't there generic variance for classes in C# 4.0?

    for more on this question.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

There is no real reason that this code shouldn't work, as far as I
Are there a real reason to use dynamic linking and binary distributions these days?
Is there some reason that identical math operations would take significantly longer in one
Is there any real use for self modifying code ? I know that they
Is there any real reason to use a 3rd party Certificate Authority for your
Is there any reason for making delegate when using EJB3? Because the only real
First time cake user and I'm having real apache problems. For some reason the
I don't have a real reason for doing this, other than to gain understanding,
I've always thought that the concept of Marshalling had a bit of a funny
I found, the hard way , that at least boost::program_options is dependent of the

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.