I realize this is an old question, but there have been a number of comments about the fact that all solutions so far have run-time checks to ensure the data type is an enum. Here is a complete solution (with some examples) of a solution with compile time checks (as well as some comments and discussions from my fellow developers)
//There is no good way to constrain a generic class parameter to an Enum. The hack below does work at compile time,
// though it is convoluted. For examples of how to use the two classes EnumIndexedArray and ObjEnumIndexedArray,
// see AssetClassArray below. Or, e.g.
// EConstraint.EnumIndexedArray x = new EConstraint.EnumIndexedArray();
// See this post
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/79126/create-generic-method-constraining-t-to-an-enum/29581813#29581813
// and the answer/comments by Julien Lebosquain
public class EConstraint : HackForCompileTimeConstraintOfTEnumToAnEnum { }//THIS MUST BE THE ONLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ABSTRACT HackForCompileTimeConstraintOfTEnumToAnEnum
public abstract class HackForCompileTimeConstraintOfTEnumToAnEnum where SystemEnum : class
{
//For object types T, users should use EnumIndexedObjectArray below.
public class EnumIndexedArray
where TEnum : struct, SystemEnum
{
//Needs to be public so that we can easily do things like intIndexedArray.data.sum()
// - just not worth writing up all the equivalent methods, and we can't inherit from T[] and guarantee proper initialization.
//Also, note that we cannot use Length here for initialization, even if Length were defined the same as GetNumEnums up to
// static qualification, because we cannot use a non-static for initialization here.
// Since we want Length to be non-static, in keeping with other definitions of the Length property, we define the separate static
// GetNumEnums, and then define the non-static Length in terms of the actual size of the data array, just for clarity,
// safety and certainty (in case someone does something stupid like resizing data).
public T[] data = new T[GetNumEnums()];
//First, a couple of statics allowing easy use of the enums themselves.
public static TEnum[] GetEnums()
{
return (TEnum[])Enum.GetValues(typeof(TEnum));
}
public TEnum[] getEnums()
{
return GetEnums();
}
//Provide a static method of getting the number of enums. The Length property also returns this, but it is not static and cannot be use in many circumstances.
public static int GetNumEnums()
{
return GetEnums().Length;
}
//This should always return the same as GetNumEnums, but is not static and does it in a way that guarantees consistency with the member array.
public int Length { get { return data.Length; } }
//public int Count { get { return data.Length; } }
public EnumIndexedArray() { }
// [WDS 2015-04-17] Remove. This can be dangerous. Just force people to use EnumIndexedArray(T[] inputArray).
// [DIM 2015-04-18] Actually, if you think about it, EnumIndexedArray(T[] inputArray) is just as dangerous:
// For value types, both are fine. For object types, the latter causes each object in the input array to be referenced twice,
// while the former causes the single object t to be multiply referenced. Two references to each of many is no less dangerous
// than 3 or more references to one. So all of these are dangerous for object types.
// We could remove all these ctors from this base class, and create a separate
// EnumIndexedValueArray : EnumIndexedArray where T: struct ...
// but then specializing to TEnum = AssetClass would have to be done twice below, once for value types and once
// for object types, with a repetition of all the property definitions. Violating the DRY principle that much
// just to protect against stupid usage, clearly documented as dangerous, is not worth it IMHO.
public EnumIndexedArray(T t)
{
int i = Length;
while (--i >= 0)
{
this[i] = t;
}
}
public EnumIndexedArray(T[] inputArray)
{
if (inputArray.Length > Length)
{
throw new Exception(string.Format("Length of enum-indexed array ({0}) to big. Can't be more than {1}.", inputArray.Length, Length));
}
Array.Copy(inputArray, data, inputArray.Length);
}
public EnumIndexedArray(EnumIndexedArray inputArray)
{
Array.Copy(inputArray.data, data, data.Length);
}
//Clean data access
public T this[int ac] { get { return data[ac]; } set { data[ac] = value; } }
public T this[TEnum ac] { get { return data[Convert.ToInt32(ac)]; } set { data[Convert.ToInt32(ac)] = value; } }
}
public class EnumIndexedObjectArray : EnumIndexedArray
where TEnum : struct, SystemEnum
where T : new()
{
public EnumIndexedObjectArray(bool doInitializeWithNewObjects = true)
{
if (doInitializeWithNewObjects)
{
for (int i = Length; i > 0; this[--i] = new T()) ;
}
}
// The other ctor's are dangerous for object arrays
}
public class EnumIndexedArrayComparator : EqualityComparer>
where TEnum : struct, SystemEnum
{
private readonly EqualityComparer elementComparer = EqualityComparer.Default;
public override bool Equals(EnumIndexedArray lhs, EnumIndexedArray rhs)
{
if (lhs == rhs)
return true;
if (lhs == null || rhs == null)
return false;
//These cases should not be possible because of the way these classes are constructed.
// HOWEVER, the data member is public, so somebody _could_ do something stupid and make
// data=null, or make lhs.data == rhs.data, even though lhs!=rhs (above check)
//On the other hand, these are just optimizations, so it won't be an issue if we reomve them anyway,
// Unless someone does something really dumb like setting .data to null or resizing to an incorrect size,
// in which case things will crash, but any developer who does this deserves to have it crash painfully...
//if (lhs.data == rhs.data)
// return true;
//if (lhs.data == null || rhs.data == null)
// return false;
int i = lhs.Length;
//if (rhs.Length != i)
// return false;
while (--i >= 0)
{
if (!elementComparer.Equals(lhs[i], rhs[i]))
return false;
}
return true;
}
public override int GetHashCode(EnumIndexedArray enumIndexedArray)
{
//This doesn't work: for two arrays ar1 and ar2, ar1.GetHashCode() != ar2.GetHashCode() even when ar1[i]==ar2[i] for all i (unless of course they are the exact same array object)
//return engineArray.GetHashCode();
//Code taken from comment by Jon Skeet - of course - in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7244699/gethashcode-on-byte-array
//31 and 17 are used commonly elsewhere, but maybe because everyone is using Skeet's post.
//On the other hand, this is really not very critical.
unchecked
{
int hash = 17;
int i = enumIndexedArray.Length;
while (--i >= 0)
{
hash = hash * 31 + elementComparer.GetHashCode(enumIndexedArray[i]);
}
return hash;
}
}
}
}
//Because of the above hack, this fails at compile time - as it should. It would, otherwise, only fail at run time.
//public class ThisShouldNotCompile : EConstraint.EnumIndexedArray
//{
//}
//An example
public enum AssetClass { Ir, FxFwd, Cm, Eq, FxOpt, Cr };
public class AssetClassArrayComparator : EConstraint.EnumIndexedArrayComparator { }
public class AssetClassIndexedArray : EConstraint.EnumIndexedArray
{
public AssetClassIndexedArray()
{
}
public AssetClassIndexedArray(T t) : base(t)
{
}
public AssetClassIndexedArray(T[] inputArray) : base(inputArray)
{
}
public AssetClassIndexedArray(EConstraint.EnumIndexedArray inputArray) : base(inputArray)
{
}
public T Cm { get { return this[AssetClass.Cm ]; } set { this[AssetClass.Cm ] = value; } }
public T FxFwd { get { return this[AssetClass.FxFwd]; } set { this[AssetClass.FxFwd] = value; } }
public T Ir { get { return this[AssetClass.Ir ]; } set { this[AssetClass.Ir ] = value; } }
public T Eq { get { return this[AssetClass.Eq ]; } set { this[AssetClass.Eq ] = value; } }
public T FxOpt { get { return this[AssetClass.FxOpt]; } set { this[AssetClass.FxOpt] = value; } }
public T Cr { get { return this[AssetClass.Cr ]; } set { this[AssetClass.Cr ] = value; } }
}
//Inherit from AssetClassArray, not EnumIndexedObjectArray, so we get the benefit of the public access getters and setters above
public class AssetClassIndexedObjectArray : AssetClassIndexedArray where T : new()
{
public AssetClassIndexedObjectArray(bool bInitializeWithNewObjects = true)
{
if (bInitializeWithNewObjects)
{
for (int i = Length; i > 0; this[--i] = new T()) ;
}
}
}
EDIT:
If you are using C# 7.3 or later, PLEASE don't use this ugly solution. See Ian Goldby's answer from 2018.
加载中...