Skip to main content

C# 2.0 - Anonymous Methods

Let's get back to my series on the evolution of the C# language.

Everybody is familiar with what a delegate is, right? We know that delegates are a big part of the events system in .Net. We register a method on that delegate (called handler) that is invoked when the delegate is invoked. In other words, a delegate simply points to a method. The advantage here is that, as the delegate wraps the method and is an object, we can simply pass it to a method as a parameter! Think about this:


This is how we use a delegate in events, for instance. The class exposes the delegate and we register our method to listen it. When the delegate is called inside the class, all the registered methods will be called (because of this, we call it a Multicast Delegate). This works well, because all you have to do is have a method with the required signature.

In the example above, we needed to declare two methods just to make a Console.WriteLine. Isn't this too much? I think it's a bit too much having to create methods to such simple things. Sometimes we encapsulate some one-line piece of logic, but i think creating a method for it feels like overdoing it . What we can do in this situation is use the C# 2.0 Anonymous Methods syntactic sugar. This will allow this code:


See how much cleaner this is now? We just used an anonymous method to assign to a delegate and never had to declare that nasty method. Of course, the signature of the anonymous method still needs to match with the delegate, or a compiler will throw an error. You can pass parameters inside that delegate() call, just like you would for the named method.

Delegates are useful to maximize encapsulation and keep code simple. You can use them if, say, a class needs the ability to execute multiple methods from outside sources with just one call. It is very simple to use this kind of features, and, when properly designed, an application can benefit a lot from this, as this can be an interesting extensibility point.

Keep coding!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

From crappy to happy - dependency what, now?

Following the introduction on this series on a previous post, we will now talk about dependency injection and how it has the effect of allowing for more testable code. Sometimes when I talk about this concept it is difficult to explain the effect that applying it might have on the tests. For that reason I think it is better to demonstrate with a near-real-world situation. Obviously, keep in mind this is not real code, so don't worry about the design or implementation details that don't contribute to the point being discussed. The code As you can see, it is simple. There's a class called ShipManager (what else?) that receives position updates for the ships. It keeps the last position reported from each ship and does some calculation to see how much the ship moved. It assigns some values to the update and finally it persists the final version of the update. How do we start testing? When you think about it, tests are dead simple. A test either passes or it doesn...

The repository's repository

Ever since I started delving into architecture,  and specifically service oriented architecture, there has been one matter where opinions get divided. Let me state the problem first, and then take a look at both sides of the barricade. Given that your service layer needs to access persistent storage, how do you model that layer? It is almost common knowledge what to do here: use the Repository design pattern. So we look at the pattern and decide that it seems simple enough! Let's implement the shit out of it! Now, let's say that you will use an ORM - here comes trouble. Specifically we're using EF, but we could be talking about NHibernate or really any other. The real divisive theme is this question: should you be using the repository pattern at all when you use an ORM? I'll flat out say it: I don't think you should... except with good reason. So, sharpen your swords, pray to your gods and come with me to fight this war... or maybe stay in the couch? ...

Follow up: improving the Result type from feedback

This post is a follow up on the previous post. It presents an approach on how to return values from a method. I got some great feedback both good and bad from other people, and with that I will present now the updated code taking that feedback into account. Here is the original: And the modified version: Following is some of the most important feedback which led to this. Make it an immutable struct This was a useful one. I can't say that I have ever found a problem with having the Result type as a class, but that is just a matter of scale. The point of this is that now we avoid allocating memory in high usage scenarios. This was a problem of scale, easily solvable. Return a tuple instead of using a dedicated Result type The initial implementation comes from a long time ago, when C# did not have (good) support for tuples and deconstruction wasn't heard of. You would have to deal with the Tuple type, which was a bit of a hassle. I feel it would complicate the ...