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

Why is the Single Responsability Principle important?

The Single Responsability Principle is one of the five S.O.L.I.D. principles in which i base my everyday programming. It tells us how a method or class should have only one responsability. Not a long time ago i was designing a reporting service with my colleague Nuno for an application module we were redoing and we had a method that was responsible for being both the factory method of a popup view and showing it to the user. You can see where this is going now... I figured out it would not be a that bad violation of the principle, so we moved on with this design. The method was called something like "ShowPrintPopup" and it took an IReport as an argument. All this was fine, but then we got to a point where we needed to have a permissions system to say if the user was able to export the report to Excel, Word, PDF, etc... The problem was the print popup would need to know beforehand if it would allow the user to export the report or not, so that it could show it's UI a...

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...

From crappy to happy - refactoring untestable code - an introduction

I started testing my code automatically a couple of years in after starting my career. Working in a small company, there weren't really incentives for us to automate testing and we were not following any kind of best practices. Our way of working was to write the code, test it manually and then just Release It ™ , preferably on a Friday of course. I'm sure everyone can relate to this at some point in their career, because this is a lot more common than the Almighty Programming Gods of the Internet make us believe. I find that the amount of companies that actually bother writing tests for their production code is a fraction of the whole universe. I know some friends who work in pretty big companies with big names in the industry and even there the same mindset exists. Of course, at some point in time our code turned into a big pile of shit . Nobody really knew what was going on and where. We had quantum-level switcheroo that nobody really wanted to touch, and I suspect it i...